Open Council

1st Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

1st Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

December 3, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor E. Peloza discloses a pecuniary interest in item 3.9 having to do with the property located at 1922 Highland Heights and 205 Commissioners Road East by indicating that she resides within the notification area of the subject lands.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 to 2.7 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   Planning & Development and Building Monthly Housing Update - 2024-Year-To-Date

2024-12-03 (2.1) Monthly Housing Update 2024

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated December 3, 2024 entitled “Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Passage of Heritage Designating By-law - 247 Halls Mills Road

2024-12-03 Staff Report (2.2) Passage of Heritage Designating By-law for 247 Halls Mill Road - PEC Report (MG)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix A, to designate the property located at 247 Halls Mill Road to be of cultural heritage value or interest BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024; it being noted that this matter has been considered by the Community Advisory Committee on Planning and public notice has been completed with respect to the designation in compliance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Motion Passed

2.3   Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review and Thames River Draft Floodplain Update - Status Update

2024-12-03 Staff Report (2.3) UTRCA SLR and Thames River Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated December 3, 2024 entitled “Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review and Thames River Draft Floodplain Update – Status Update” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   Amendments to the Upgrade to Building Code Loan and Façade Improvement Loan Program Guidelines

2024-12-03 Staff Report (2.4) Amendments to Upgrade Building Code Loan and Facade Improvement Loan Program Guidelines

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to amending the Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program and Façade Improvement Loan Program Guidelines:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1467-175, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Downtown Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING it with Schedule “1” a revised Downtown Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024;

b)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1468-176, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Old East Village Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING it with Schedule “1” a revised Old East Village Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024;

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1521-13, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING it with Schedule “1” a revised SoHo Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024;

d) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1527-248, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING it with Schedule “1” a revised Hamilton Road Area Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024;

e) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1539-220, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Lambeth Area Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING it with Schedule “1” a revised Lambeth Area Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines; appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024; and,

f) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “F” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND By-law C.P.-1570-330, as amended, being A By-law to establish financial incentives for the Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Project Area, by DELETING Schedule “1” and REPLACING it with Schedule “1” a revised The Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024.

Motion Passed

2.5   Limiting Distance (No Build) Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the owners of 2537 Bridgehaven Drive

2024-12-03 Staff Report (2.5) Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement - 2537 Bridgehaven Drive (PM)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken in respect of a limiting distance (no-build) agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and XO Homes (2537 Bridgehaven Drive, London, Ontario):

a)    the proposed limiting distance agreement appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 for the property at 2537 Bridgehaven Drive between The Corporation of the City of London and XO Homes BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 3, 2024, to approve the limiting distance agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and XO Homes for the property at 2537 Bridgehaven Drive, and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London as the adjacent property owner.

Motion Passed

2.6   Review of Minister’s Zoning Orders

2024-12-03 Staff Report (2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated December 3, 2024 entitled “Review of Minister’s Zoning Orders” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.7   11th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2024-11-21 ECAC Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 11th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 21, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   11th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2024-11-13 CACP Report - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on November 13, 2024:

a) the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Listed Property Work Plan BE APPROVED; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.3 BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from J.M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1472 Dundas Street (Z-9788)

2024-12-03 Staff Report 1472 Dundas Street (IdC) - Z-9788

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2288711 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 1472 Dundas Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area (CSA1) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)H35D350) Zone;

b) the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i) landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

ii) investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

iii) investigate air source heat pump options; and,

iv) apply bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  • the presentation from K. Wahdat, Weston Consulting;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • R. Lamichhane, Weston Consulting;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  • the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Urban Corridor Place Type policies; and,

  • the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   325 Southdale Road West (Z-9794)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.3) 325 Southdale Road East (IdC) - Z-9794

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of Sandhyaji Homes Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 325 Southdale Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the December 3, 2024 Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (*R5-6(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  • the revised by-law;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

-  A. Richards, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

- the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

- the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the North Longwoods Neighbourhood policies; and,

- the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.4   952 Southdale Road West (Z-9787)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3. 4) 952 Southdale Road West (CC) Z-9787

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of Forest Edge Commons Inc., (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants), relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to amend the zoning of a portion of the subject property BY AMENDING the Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA1(6)) Zone;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS); 

  • the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  • the recommended amendment would permit a complementary use that is considered appropriate within the surrounding context;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

3.5   691 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9800)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.5) 691 Fanshawe Pk Rd E (AR) Z-9800

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of Mamdouh Ahmed, (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants), relating to the property located at 691 Fanshawe Park Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(  )) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  • the presentation from B. Senkevics, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • B. Senkevics, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; and,

  • G. Bloch;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  • the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  • the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.6   Request to remove the Heritage Listed Property at 1927 Richmond Street from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.6) 1927 Richmond Street (MG)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property located at 1927 Richmond Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication dated November 27, 2024 from A. Winder;

  •    a communication dated November 27, 2024 from D. Jordan, Executive Superintendent of Business and Corporate Services, London District Catholic School Board;

  •    a communication dated November 25, 2024 from A. Thompson;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from B. Perry;

  •    a communication from Dr. C. Drake;

  •    a communication dated November 27, 2024 from G. Cook;

  •    a communication dated November 27, 2024 from Jill;

  •    a communication dated November 27, 2024 from L. Hamilton Smit;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from M. Allistone;

  •    a communication dated November 29, 2024 from M. Thompson;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from M. Tucker;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from S. Kosar;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from C. Dykeman;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from E. Kennedy;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from S. Jackson;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from C. Ryan;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from D. Thompson;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from C. Thompson;

  •    a communication from J. Grainger;

  •    a communication dated November 29, 2024 from R. Merrison;

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from J. Marsh; and,

  •    a communication dated November 30, 2024 from Dr. J. P. Stevens;

 

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    M Rivard, Senior Heritage Consultant, Stantec Consulting; and,

  •    C. Drake;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.7   Request to demolish the building at 93 King Street

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.7) - 93 King St - Request to Demolish (LD)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to demolish the existing building on the property at 93 King Street, within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED subject to the term and condition that, following the demolition of the current building, decorative wrought iron fencing and all-season landscaping be installed by the property owner along the King Street frontage of the property as shown in Appendix C as an interim condition prior to the future redevelopment of the property;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.8   Site Plan Control Area By-law: Housekeeping and Council Directed Amendments

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.8) Site Plan Control Area By-law - Housekeeping and Council Directed Amendemnets

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to implementing house-keeping amendments and sustainability measures to the Site Plan Control By-law as follows:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024 to amend By-law C.P.-1455-541, as amended, entitled the “Site Plan Control By-law”, to add the following:

i) exempt classes of development for less than 10 residential units, portables associated with school boards, colleges and universities;

ii) remove references to mandatory pre-application consultation;

iii) require bird-friendly standards for city facilities design standards; and

iv) encourage a minimum amount of native species for landscaping.

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to add the following:

i) a minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations for new development;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  • a communication dated November 27, 2024 from A. Vandersluis, Development Manager, Auburn Developments;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  • B. Samuels; and,

  • B. Salt, Salthaven;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the proposed amendments align the Site Plan Control By-law with recent Provincial changes; and,

  • the proposed sustainability measures implement The London Plan policies that encourage bird-friendly design, native planting species and future-ready developments that can accommodate electrical vehicle charging;

it being further noted that the Civic Administration will report back to the Municipal Council with an update regarding the Green Development Guidelines in Q1 2025. Staff will review the legislative framework and municipal best practices to implement sustainable building construction features, and provide a scope and timeline for the preparation of the Guidelines;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.9   1922 Highland Heights and 205 Commissioners Road East

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.9) 1922 Highland Hts 205 Comm Rd E (MV) Z-9795

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Highland Golf & Country Club, c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1922 Highland Heights and 205 Commissioners Road East:

a) the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject properties at 1922 Highland Heights and 205 Commissioners Road East FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-9()) Zone and a Holding Open Space Special Provision (h-101*OS1()) Zone;

b) the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i) enhanced landscape buffering along the north and west property boundaries that exceed the minimum requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

ii) installation of a board-on-board fence, exceeding the height requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law, along the north property boundary;

iii) removal of the access between the existing single detached dwelling and west property boundary;

iv) the Development Agreement shall reflect the need for an easement should the parcels be placed in separate ownership in the future;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  • a communication dated November 29, 2024 from K. Crowley, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • K. Crowley, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    J. Schreff;

  •    M. Katsmenis;

  •    L. Pereira;

  •    Y. Leong;

  •    A. Balassone;

  •    K. Beck;

  •    C. McLaurin; and,

  •    D. Doueck;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which promotes economic development and competitiveness by encouraging the intensification of employment uses;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to, the Green Space Place Type, City Building Policies, and Our Tools; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a maintenance building that is accessory to the existing golf course and appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.10   21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.10) 21-41 Meadowlily Rd N 20 Norlan Ave (MV) Z-9798

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2812347 Ontario Inc., c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue:

a)    the proposed revised, attached, by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision Bonus (h-17h-100R5-7(26)B-94) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (hR5-7(26)) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

it being noted that the applicant has committed to the following:

i)    providing new playgrounds for Ealing and Trafalgar Elementary Public Schools; and, 

ii)    constructing a sewer line, at their cost, to the Urban Roots property at 21  Norlan Avenue, subject to future approvals by the Board of Urban Roots;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communication with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication dated November 28, 2024 from Councillor H. McAlister, Ward 1 Councillor;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    L. Jamieson, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;and,

  •    A. Badillo, Urban Roots;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs municipalities to support the achievement of complete communities by improving social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; and,

  •    the proposed density can be  appropriately accommodated on the subject lands and is  compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.11   4040 Colonel Talbot Road (OZ-9796)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.11) 4040 Colonel Talbot Road (MH) OZ-9796

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 4040 Colonel Talbot Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), for the City of London to change the designation of the subject lands FROM Low Density Residential TO Medium Density Residential on Schedule 4 Southwest Area Land Use Plan, and Schedule 6 Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood Land Use Designations;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

c) the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i) ensure the front face and principal unit entrances for Block D are oriented toward Colonel Talbot Road;

ii) explore opportunities to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favour of more landscaped area;

iii) provide a centrally located and adequately sized common outdoor amenity space; and,

iv) enhanced tree planting and landscaping;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    BEAU;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

- the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment; 

-  the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

-  the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of an underutilized site at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and within the existing and planned context;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.12   415 Oxford Street West (OZ-9789)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.12) 415 Oxford Street West (MH) OZ-9789

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of RAND Developments, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 415 Oxford Street West:

a) the request to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by AMENDING an existing policy in the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type of the Official Plan, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment does not satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies;

ii) the requested amendment does not facilitate an appropriate form of residential intensification that is sensitive to existing (and future) neighbourhoods and does not represent a good fit, as required by the intensity and residential intensification policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type; and,

iii) the requested amendment does not conform to Policy 86_ of The London Plan that directs the most intense forms of development to the Downtown, Transit Villages and along the Rapid Transit Corridors in which the requested height permissions better align;

b) the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreational (CR) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Residential R10 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (R10-3()/CSA1()) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs municipalities to support the achievement of complete communities by improving social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes;

ii) the requested amendment is not in conformity with The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

iii) the requested amendment is not appropriate within the existing and planned context; and,

iv) the requested amendment is considered premature as it is contingent upon the outcome of the ultimate floodplain limits following the Mud Creek Realignment, and development is dependent on servicing and access from the adjacent Draft Plan of Subdivision;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  • a communication dated November 29, 2024 from T. Whitney, Intermediate Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • T. Whitney, Intermediate Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council refuses this application for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment does not satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies;

ii) the requested amendment does not facilitate an appropriate form of residential intensification that is sensitive to existing (and future) neighbourhoods and does not represent a good fit, as required by the intensity and residential intensification policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type; and,

iii) the requested amendment does not conform to Policy 86_ of The London Plan that directs the most intense forms of development to the Downtown, Transit Villages and along the Rapid Transit Corridors in which the requested height permissions better align;

i) the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs municipalities to support the achievement of complete communities by improving social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes;

ii) the requested amendment is not in conformity with The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

iii) the requested amendment is not appropriate within the existing and planned context; and,

iv) the requested amendment is considered premature as it is contingent upon the outcome of the ultimate floodplain limits following the Mud Creek Realignment, and development is dependent on servicing and access from the adjacent Draft Plan of Subdivision;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.13   City-Wide Holding Provision Symbol Review (Z-9762)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.13) City-Wide Holding Provision Symbol Review (RB) - Z-9762 FULL

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the City-Wide Holding Provision Symbol Review, the proposed by-law appended to the December 3, 2024 Planning and Environment Committee as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to AMEND Section 3.8(2) (“Holding Zone Provisions”) By-law No. Z.-1 with an updated list of holding provisions available for use and to adjust the zoning of the subject properties to reflect the revisions to Section 3.8(2);

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  • the staff presentation; and,

  • the revised by-law;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  • F. Feldman, John Sivak

  • J. Johnson, on behalf of D. Matthews;

  • J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;

  • M. Moussa; and,

  • B. Rosser, on behalf of Shleigel Villages;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •  the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024;

  •  the recommended amendment is consistent with the Planning Act; and,

  •  the recommended amendment supports Council’s goals in the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan, to improve the delivery of service;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

3.14   Land Needs Assessment - Official Plan Review of The London Plan (O-9595)

2024-12-03 Staff Report (3.14) Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth)- OP Review of TLP O-9595 - FULL

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan:

a) the Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth) appended to the staff report dated December 3, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE ADOPTED for use as part of Phase 1B of the Section 26 Review of The London Plan;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate an Urban Growth Boundary Review for inclusion of approximately 1,476 hectares of developable land to accommodate planned growth, consistent with the Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth) using a 30 year planning horizon;

c) the Housing Supply Marketplace Analysis, attached hereto as Appendix “B”, dated November 2024 prepared by Colliers Project Leaders Inc. for the City of London BE RECEIVED;

d) the Province BE REQUESTED to support an Urban Growth Boundary expansion of approximately 2,000 hectares of developable land to accelerate London’s new housing supply, considering the Housing Supply Marketplace Analysis and the Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth);

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop an alternate scenario of approximately 2,000 hectares of developable land to be used if Provincial support is received;

f)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to receive landowner requests for candidate properties to be evaluated for potential inclusion within the urban area of the city as part of the Urban Growth Boundary Review; and,

g) the staff report dated December 3, 2024 entitled “Final Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth: Official Plan Review of The London Plan” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the findings of the Urban Growth Boundary Review, including evaluation of landowner requests and blocks identified for evaluation by Civic Administration, is to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for Council adoption and circulation to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for Ministry Approval;

it being further noted that the development of lands within the Urban Growth Boundary Review expansion area will proceed as approved by Council through future planning approvals and the annual Growth Management Implementation Strategy process;

it being also noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  • the staff presentation;

  • a communication from J-M. Metrailler;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  • S. Levin;

  • J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;

  • M. Moussa;

  • B. Samuels;

  • L. Blumer;

  • J. Novik, London Home Builders Association;

  • M. A. Hodge; and,

  • B. Wansbrough;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the Land Needs Assessment is a component of an Official Plan review, required to be undertaken by municipalities;

  • consistent with Section 26 of the Planning Act, the Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth) under Appendix ‘A’ of the December 3rd report, conforms to provincial plans, has regard for matters of Provincial interest, and is consistent with the new Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS); and,

  • the Land Needs Assessment under Appendix A also conforms with policies of The London Plan and is consistent with Terms of Reference approved by City Council in April 2023;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed

Moved by E. Peloza

Motion to approve clauses d) and e) of the staff recommendation; it being noted that clauses d) and e) read as follows:

“d) the Province BE REQUESTED to support an Urban Growth Boundary expansion of approximately 2,000 hectares of developable land to accelerate London’s new housing supply, considering the Housing Supply Marketplace Analysis and the Land Needs Assessment (Community Growth); and,

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop an alternate scenario of approximately 2,000 hectares of developable land to be used if Provincial support is received;“

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, Section 33.8 of the said by-law be suspended for the purpose of permitting the meeting to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Deferred Matters List

2024-12-03 PEC Deferred Matters List

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Deferred List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

6.1   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

A matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or  employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to the property located at 1494 Commissioners Road West at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes In Closed Session from 6:10 PM to 6:17 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

The meeting adjourned at 6:20 PM.

Motion Passed

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (5 hours, 23 minutes)

[14:09] Okay, folks, it’s just past one o’clock. I would like to call the first meeting of the planning and environment committee to order. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenna Peiwak, and Adwanda Ran. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call us territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today as representatives of the people of the city of London.

[14:42] We are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or 516-661-2489 extension-2425. And you can please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. I would just like to say at this time, a couple of things, one, welcome two new members to planning, Councillor Palosa and Councillor Cudi.

[15:22] You picked a great one to get a start on. Welcome. The mayor will be joining us. He’s in Ottawa today. He’ll be joining us through the meeting via Zoom. And one final thing is being it’s a long agenda. It’s my intention to break somewhere around five o’clock for half hour to just recalibrate. So on that, I will look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[15:57] One, my e-scribe’s not loading its blank. And two, I’m declaring a public conflict on item 3.9 as I live within the notification areas for the subject lands. Okay, thank you. Any other disclosures? Councillor Lewis. Councillor Lehman, I’ll just advise that Councillor Cudi and I also have blank e-scribes. There are no calendar items listed in the e-scribe. So we cannot get into the meeting agendas. Okay, just second, please. We’re working on the technical issue.

[17:06] I would like to ask Councillors if they’re okay with a verbal, until we get this finished just to get the show on the road. Okay, perfect, good. Councillor Hillier, you’re online. We’ll all look for a verbal or a verbal from you as well on the votes. I’m on line. I’ll load it from line. Oh, terrific. Okay, good. Thank you. Okay, we’re moving on to consent items. I will look for a committee for a motion here. Councillor Cudi.

[17:45] Councillor Cudi’s moving the consent items over for a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, I will put this on the floor. But before I do, I just want to go to staff for a brief comment on 2.3 regarding the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review and floodplain updates. Through the chair. Well, we’ve provided you an update on this is coming back from some information that we provided you early in the year just to let you know with the status.

[18:17] So I’m very happy to see that the service review is progressing. It has been broken into a couple of phases now and we as much as, it’s great that we’ve moved forward that first phase, that second phase that we’ve highlighted looking at their use of in-house modeling. We do want to highlight that as a priority moving forward as well and just want to keep the urgency on that item as well. There’s also been a significant amount of work that’s ongoing regarding to regulatory floodplain mapping and I’m going to throw it off to Ashley to provide some feedback from her group’s perspective.

[18:51] Thank you. Now I’ll put it on the floor for committee discussion. Oh, I’m sorry, sorry, please go ahead, I cut you off. Go ahead. That’s okay, thank you through the chair. Yes, as we have been going through the modeling and floodline mapping provided by the Upper Thames Conservation Authority, as noted in the report, we do have some concerns that we continue to try and work through with them, but in terms of how the line work has been arrived at. So we will be seeking further documentation on the flows as they are significantly higher than what our modeling indicates.

[19:27] And this does have a significant impact for land use planning for planning development applications and so on. So we will continue to work through that. They have received peer review comments and comments from the city, but we have not had an indication yet as to whether they will incorporate those comments. Okay, thank you. I will now go to committee members for questions, comments on this item or other items on the consent agenda. I’m Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[20:02] Thank you, Chair. So I’m going to start by saying to our staff, I appreciate the update. I know that largely this pacing is out of your control, but I’m also going to share with committee, I’m extremely frustrated that we’re now talking about a timeline that is now moved from Q3 of 2025 for upper Thames to have this work completed to before the end of 2026, not even a queue of 2026, just a before the end of.

[20:38] So very disappointed that upper Thames really, in my opinion, has not made much progress on this since we provided funding to help them undertake this process back in April. We’re in December now and the goal post is moving and I’m not very happy about that. I shared the concerns that Ms. Ramlu just shared with us about the impact on some of this floodplain mapping on developable land area, something I know we’ll be talking about later in this meeting, particularly when I see comments like, well, Ms. Ramlu indicated the flow rate, significant variances between the city’s numbers and what upper Thames is using.

[21:35] And then to see in the reports that upper Thames is not actually following the approach applied by the largest CAs and going with a 3, a 0.3 meter free board to account for climate change within the regulatory flood line where it represents an additional vertical value where other CAs are including a free board with respect to flood proofing, not prohibition of building. So to me upper Thames is way out of line with what other conservation authorities have established as best practice modeling in other parts of the province.

[22:16] And when we talk about developable land, that’s a big concern. That 0.3 meters represents a tremendous number of hectares of land within our city that’s locked up from development at the moment by a conservation authority that is doing its own thing in the face of what other conservation authorities are doing to address those concerns. So I just want to say I’m very disappointed that this is where we are at this point in time. And that’s not a reflection on our staff and I want to underscore that again.

[22:51] I think that we need to see a serious commitment from upper Thames to a specific completion date, not a vague before the end of 2026. I think that some of the best practices that have been identified by other CAs in use in this province need to be taken under consideration. I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been any response back from upper Thames on those comments being provided. And so I’m really frustrated and quite honestly losing some faith in our conservation authority here.

[23:35] I appreciate the phase two is going to undertake a value for money audit. If I’m not mistaken, the floodplain modeling has now been 10 years in the works. I’m seeing some nods from our staff on that. This should not take 10 years. So just want to express those frustrations and I will be looking forward to reaching out to the conservation authority or following up and discussing this with the mayor as well.

[24:10] A timeline of some time before the end of 2026 is not adequate. And I’ll be looking for a more firm commitment from them coming forward. Thank you, I’ll look for other comments. I’ll go to Councilor Pribble. Thank you, and when there was this meeting between sitting in upper Thames, I think it was during the summer, there was a mentioned deadline from the province here and can you please comment on that? Thank you, I’ll go to staff of that. Thank you and through the chair. That was actually in reference to a lands assessment study that’s part of the required works new requirement by the province.

[24:47] But that was respect to the upper Thames land inventory by the end of the year. Councilor, thank you. No more questions on this one. I do have questions other ones, but I’ll let the committee first. Okay, members, I’ll look for Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. And I just want to make a couple comments on 2.3. I know upper Thames Conservation Authority has started the RFP process for streamlining. We’ve committed the $100,000 to make that happen.

[25:21] And I really hope staff, both city staff and upper Thames come together and continue their meetings. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments from committee members who are visiting Councilors. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, and sort of chair to the staff. I do have some questions and comments to 2.1. And the first one, sorry. The first one on page 6, 2.0. Currently VR, by the way, it was a really nice 431 units over the last month, which is a nice progress.

[25:57] What is the projection for the year and number of units? Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I just want to highlight there’s a bit of a typo in the report. So I have confirmed that it’s 3,803 as our current projection for the units within building permits. Councilor Pribble. Thank you for that update. And below a new housing in London, when I again look at from last month’s 471 units, 18% increase, which is really very positive.

[26:30] And certainly keeps us on track. And I just want to get your feedback and future outlook. Thank you. Mr. Mathers. Absolutely. I just want to highlight the team’s work between that planning and development side and the building side. They’ve been able to move forward a lot of new housing in London this year. And just reported by CMHC that it’s this been the second most number of units in the last 10 years. So definitely going in the right direction. I think, and my hope is for the coming year to even be able to like continue to push those boundaries and to see even more growth happening.

[27:04] And we know that most of this has been focused on the apartment side. And we’re hoping that there will be ideally be a rebound in that single family that we’ve historically been substantial part of our numbers. So we are, of course, like setting ourselves up for that to be able to bring that forward. But that’s our hope in the new year. That is very dependent on the development community and the builders being able to bring those units forward, which is also tied to the marketplace. So we want to have a lot of consideration for that as well. But our hope is that we’re going to keep increasing over the end of this year.

[27:37] And then into the Q2025 and Q1 and 2025. Council Perbal. Thank you and thank you to your team for this work. And the last one, a 5.0 completed housing initiatives. We have an additional one, which was protected major transit stations areas. Are there any other ones that are planned to be completed before the year end? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, one last piece that we were looking to finalize and you’ll see this in the SPPC agenda is a report back on the housing accelerator fund and the various actions that we’ve undertaken.

[28:10] So that report will be available for everyone and to the public on Wednesday. So we highlight all of the various targets that we had and the requirements that we had to be able to achieve what we’ve set out to do with in our agreement with the CMHC and the Government of Canada. So a lot of positive news could be highlighted in that report of all the work that the team’s done over the last year as well. And very much is done with the support of Committee and Council and bringing forward some of these major initiatives. So that’s the, we’ll be the final piece for this year.

[28:44] Councilor, thank you very much. No more questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, just really briefly also on 2.1. Again, I just want to extend congratulations and thanks to the team for the progress made. I know that this has been a work in progress for many years. Certainly, I know I’ve had many meetings with Ms. McNeely and Mr. Mathers. And a lot of the focus early on was looking at the planning side and how we got things moving there. More recently, there’s been, you know, significant progress made there begin with.

[29:20] So thanks and congratulations to Ms. McNeely and her entire department. But what I want to highlight in this report is in particular, the progress that we’ve made on the building permit side this year. And thank Mr. Shaw and his team, because when we see change year to date 2023 to 2024 of 164% this year versus last. That says to me that the building division is moving in lockstep with the speed that we’ve been accelerating things through the planning and now the permit.

[29:54] And I know that there are other factors, there are interest rates, there are how fast builders want to pull their permits, but the fact that we are 164% year to date compared to last year, I think speaks to the renewed commitment from our building division as well to work with those who are building housing in our community, get those permits out the door and get shovels in the ground. So with thanks to everybody involved, but I just wanted to particularly highlight Mr. Shaw and his team today on the building side, because I think that’s a great number year to date compared to 2023.

[30:28] I’ll look for other comments from committee members. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to staff, it’s a question on item 2.6. It’s a review of the master’s zoning orders. I know this is just to be received for information. I assume it wouldn’t make a difference if we received it or not. Part of my concerns are on page 234 that there’s no restrictions on who may request an MZO from the master. Just realizing some of their rural municipalities have farmland they’re trying to protect and developers went around and now the communities themselves are fighting.

[31:01] So just looking to see, does it make a difference if we receive versus not? Don’t go to staff. Through the chair, so as you’re all aware, this came out from a request from the mayor to for us to report back on this. As far as there’s no requirement to, like a potential legislative requirement to adopt something like this as a report. So it’ll be up to committee to decide whether they want to bring it forward. From our perspective, there’s nothing that’s incredibly binding from the document either. We’re just trying to highlight that if this was a process we wanted to go through, like how we would go through those steps.

[31:35] But yeah, completely up to committee and council how you’d like to proceed. Councilor. Okay, other comments, questions? Just from the chair of the committee will permit me. One on the housing updates. Thank you, and I understand next month we’ll be getting a full some year end report for 2024, which will indicate our progress. The provincial targets, which we constantly refer to here and some forecasting as well as, you know, where we are tracking to that.

[32:11] Not only with zoning, but with building permits, et cetera. I just want to follow up briefly with the comments made by the deputy mayor. I too feel frustration. 10 years to me is almost not doing it. I think Councilor Hopkins for recognizing the fact that it has got out for tenure for the service review process, which is terrific. But when we’re talking about land needs assessment, urban growth boundaries, flood mapping is a critical, critical part of that discussion.

[32:44] And it’s tough to work. It’s tough to forecast it’s enough with population growth, economic growth, et cetera, without this piece, because how much of that land is actually, can we build on quite frankly? And if we don’t know, then it puts our forecasts in a bit of jeopardy. So I guess my question to staff is, you know, now it’s been pushed out from Q325 into 26. What recourse do we have? Through the chair.

[33:20] So the project in the work is being led by the Conservation Authority. So we don’t have any ability from a council or administrative perspective to change that timing. We can, of course, urge them, let them know that we want to keep this as a priority, which is what we do. And we have regular meetings, monthly meetings set up, even into the next year as well with the Upper Dunn staff. So we’ll continue to just ensure that any piece that is required from us, that we’ll get it back to them as quickly as possible.

[33:54] I don’t think there’s a lot of pieces, but that we’ll just continue to urge them that this is a priority and we’ll do whatever we can to be able to support them on it. Thank you, and thank you for offering your support wherever you can to their process. I would really encourage Upper Tams to get back to their target of Q325. This is crucial for us as we’re doing an urban growth boundary review. We are starting with our land’s needs assessment discussion today. Whatever resources that the city can do, hopefully we can assist with that.

[34:28] But that, I guess, from the chair, and we’ve heard it from other committee members, the importance that we have in getting this done. And again, driving to get roofs or folks’ heads. We want to build houses. We kind of don’t want to build them. So that’s my remark from the chair. I’ll leave it at that. We’ve got it. We have a big agenda, so I want to go on. So if there’s no other comments or questions regarding— Did they ever have a big agenda? Just it.

[34:59] I would ask whoever has their mic on was online, please mute it, please. Thank you. I see the mayor has joined us online, by the way, too. I will go to the mayor. Yeah, can you hear me, Mr. Chair? We can, yeah. Yeah, I just, and I apologize to committee for jumping in and out. I’ll be in and out of this meeting. During the day, I have meetings on Parliament Hill with the Federation of K municipalities with a number of government officials. I just wanted to go back to something Mr. Mathers said.

[35:34] He corrected the number in the building report, and I just, I wasn’t able to jot that down. I wonder if you could just have him clarify to me. Was that the number of 2024 permitted starts that he was correcting? I’ll go to the mayor. I’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Absolutely. Of course, 3004 units. Mayor, did you get that? Yeah, so instead of 3,200, it’s 3,800. It’s what Mr. Mathers is saying. Correct. Okay, well, that’s pretty important to me, because part of our discussions up here is about all levels of government coming together to build housing.

[36:12] As the colleagues have heard me say many times, this is a shared responsibility between multiple levels of government. And as has been said by multiple Councillors in this, I think the municipality is doing a tremendous amount to try to enable housing. I’m very proud of the work that this council has done to ramp up our permissions, but also thankful to the building community and our staff for processing things quickly to actually elevate those permissions into actual building permits being drawn, which means we will be in the range to qualify for building faster funds, which is incredibly important for us to continue to drive infrastructure in the city to drive war housing units.

[36:53] So that becomes one of those things where when you get the money, you have the capacity to make investments and with housing enabling infrastructure to do even more. And so, we’ll have to discuss what that looks like, but this is a very good news story for us. And this is not the state that every municipality is in in my conversations with Minister Klandra. There are a lot of municipalities struggling to meet the target this year. We did not meet it last year, mainly because of a timing issue with when the date started, if we would have started six months earlier, we would have easily met it.

[37:25] But this year, we’re on track and we’re going to meet this and we’re gonna be able to access that funding and we’re gonna lead the way in a number of development categories as the city of London. I know we’re doing very well in high density residential development as well. And this is important for our conversations with our provincial and federal partners. So I’m glad to have that correction, Mr. Mathers. That’s the correction and the right direction is always really good news. So I’ll be using some of those stats and those numbers today and some of the engagements I’m doing. And again, I apologize to colleagues. I will be in and out of this meeting for various items, but wanted to add my words of thanks to our staff for the work that they’ve done on bringing housing, not just from council permission standpoint, the numbers up, but bringing those numbers to fruition in partnership with those who build homes for our community.

[38:14] Okay. Any other comments or questions from committee members or visiting councilors? So we have a motion moved and seconded. I will call the vote. I’ll vote in favor. Then I’ll be logging off for a little bit. Any votes, yes? Hello, the votes, yes. Louis votes, yes. Closing the vote to motion carries six to zero. Okay, I want to thank the councilors for putting up with our technical difficulties.

[38:58] We are working on it. Okay, moving forward to our scheduled items, looking for a 3.1 and this is a delegation from the community advisory committee on planning with their 11th report. So we’re ready to hear from the delegation. Please go ahead, sir. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

[39:37] So thanks for having me today. My name is John Mark Metray. I’m chair of the community advisory committee on planning. Thanks for having me and thanks to whoever put me first on a very long list. I think that was probably the clerk’s office. So thank you. My delegation today is to address an item in our report that we’re seeking some direction from PEC and council on. And so to give you some context, I’m sure many of you know provincial bill 23. And then as it was amended by bill 200, is set to result in somewhere of the range, somewhere in the range of 2,000 listed heritage properties, dropping off Lunditz cultural heritage register and losing their protected status on January 1, 2027.

[40:27] And so this matter is of obvious concern to our committee. And frankly, we’ve struggled a bit with how we could possibly wrap our hands around the scope of that size of a problem. But as we like to do, we decided we should be pragmatic and think about if we can possibly identify even a small number of what I’d call priority properties that we think should be looked at before January 1, 2027. We’re willing to do so.

[41:02] And so you’ll see in your agenda attached to our 11th report is a draft work plan. And I do want to say we came to you with a work plan for two reasons. The first is we know that you’re very busy. We don’t want to come to you a year from now with some recommendations that you never asked for and don’t intend to even look at. And our committee members are also volunteers and quite busy so we don’t want to work on something that is not going to be any utility to pack or council. And so you have the plan without going through it in too much detail.

[41:42] I just want to highlight kind of two important pieces of that. The first is that this really isn’t intended to be a comprehensive technical review of the 2000 or so heritage listed properties on the register. We don’t have the resources to do that even if we wanted to. So I’m certainly not presenting this as a be all solution to those properties dropping off the list. But what we wanted to do was really provide our community outreach function on this and identify properties that don’t just have technical heritage value, but also we think or the community thinks has real importance and meaning to those communities and stakeholders.

[42:32] And to give you like what I’m trying to avoid is come January 2027, the day after January 1, a building gets torn down and you’ve got a community with a significant interest in that building that says why weren’t we consulted? Why didn’t you do anything to look into this before that deadline? So this is our way of doing what we think is a small piece of that. The second part I want to highlight in the plan is we’re not trying to tie pack our council’s hands with this work plan.

[43:07] Despite what some of the committee sometimes wish, we know that there are political priorities involved in the decisions to delegate or designate or not. So I know and it’s reflected in this plan that when we come back, if you approve the plan and we come back with some recommendations, you may very well decide to disagree. That’s contemplated by the plan. But what we’re really asking here is to say, we have a plan we think will help the US council assess a looming concern and we want to know whether you approve of us doing that work or not.

[43:45] And so if the answer is yes, I would hope someone could make a motion to approve or support the plan. And I hope the answer isn’t no, but if it is no, we want to know that too. Just so we’re not going down a rabbit hole, that’s not in line with PEX priorities. And that’s all I had to say about that item. Thanks for your time. All right, good. And from the chair, thank you. And thank you to the committee. This is quite an odorous task when you have thousands of properties listed to review or even to figure out a way to begin this process.

[44:21] And what I think you’ve come up with is a pragmatic option to for council and this committee to consider. And I totally agree with you. Now’s the time to make sure that you’re headed down the right path because it’s 20, 27 sounds like a far time away, but it’s January 1, 20. This is a year basically to get through it. So I appreciate the work of the committee. Thank you very much. I will now put this item on the floor for discussion. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair and through you. I’m willing to move that the CACP report be received and that the planning and environment committee approve the attached work plan.

[45:06] I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cuddy, and I’ll go back to the deputy mayor. Yeah, now that I’ve got a seconder for that, I just want to thank Mr. Mattei for coming and speaking to us today and for taking the time in advance of the committee undertaking this work to come and consult with myself. And I think he met with other members of the prior planning committee as well to get some feedback, which is exactly what I hope to see advisory committees doing. It is coming to us and saying we think we can help with this thing that council has to work on by doing these actions and coming to us with a work plan for our approval.

[45:49] That’s actually what’s expected in the terms of reference. I think what is laid out here is reasonable. 2,000 properties on the list does not mean all 2,000 properties actually qualify for heritage designation or have heritage value. There’s simply properties of interest. And by having this committee take some of its time to really go through the list and to do some outreach and identify sort of the really key properties that have cultural and architectural heritage value for preservation in the city. Because we cannot save everything.

[46:21] We shouldn’t save everything. But there are certainly some key things that are worthy of consideration of that sort of designation and having the committee devote some of its time and have a working group that looks at this and comes back to us with some suggestions. Quite honestly, it’s exactly the model of how an advisory committee should work in my opinion. So I thank them for undertaking this and happy to support the work plan they’ve brought forward. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions from the committee. Okay.

[46:56] Seeing none, the motion is up for the public to see. He’s scribed, I understand it’s still, we’re having challenges. So we have a motion moved and seconded. I will call the vote. The votes, yes. Any votes, yes. Louis votes, yes. Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I moved to 3.2. This is regarding 1472 Dundas Street. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation, meaning Councilor Palose is seconded by Councilor Cuddy.

[47:34] I’ll call that vote. Any votes, yes. Louis vote, yes. Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Any questions from committee for a technical nature for staff? Seeing none, then I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, please give us your name and you have five minutes.

[48:08] Okay, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee and members of the public. My name is Raj Lamizani. I’m a senior planner at Western Consulting. And today I’m representing the property owner at 1472 Dundas Street in support of this joining bylaw amendment application, which will facilitate the proposed 10-storey mixed use development with commercial uses at grade and residential uses on the upper floors. I reviewed the staff report in support of our development application and staff recommendation for approval of the proposed joining bylaw amendment application.

[48:46] I would like to thank the staff for their continued support, guidance and feedback through various discussions and back processes. We said to address city departments and agency comments. I would like to mention that we have undergone through a comprehensive planning process to define the development, proposal at current form and intensity, which included four round of pack meetings. As indicated in the staff report and the planning justification report that Western prepared in support of this development proposal, the proposed development is consistent with the provincial and municipal policies and supports intensification and mixed use development intended for the lands within the urban corridor place type and along Pacific Boulevard.

[49:41] The proposed development will utilize the existing municipal and transit services, improve the street escape along Dundas Street, enhance the public realm, offer significant landscaping and amenities and implement sustainability features. In addition, the proposed development will diversify the housing stocks in the city, complement business activities along Dundas Street and support transit oriented development by providing reduced parking rate as per the city’s new parking provisions and accommodating the required long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces.

[50:17] In conclusion, the proposed development will contribute to create a safe, accessible, walkable, healthy and connected communities as well as support the city’s vision to increase housing supply and achieve intensification targets. Therefore, I believe the proposed development represents a good planning and urban design principle. I’ll be happy to answer any questions from the committee or the member of public. Thank you. Thank you. For members of the public, I would like to address the committee on this item.

[50:55] I don’t see anyone in the gallery going to the mic. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Bo, did you wish to speak to this? No, this is not my item. I’m looking to speak to 3.11. Sorry, thank you. Okay, seeing no one online and there’s no one in the gallery that would like to speak to this, I’ll look for a motion to close. PPM, Councilor Palosas, seconded by Councilor Cudi and I’ll call that vote. Palos, votes yes. Petty votes yes.

[51:30] Louis, vote yes. Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Put this on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Chair, just through you as a point of order before we move on this item, we’ve got quite a number of public participation meetings to open and close today. I’m wondering, and I’m willing to be the mover on all of them.

[52:04] I’m wondering if we could get a same mover and seconder to open and close all the PPMs and just do those votes by hand until E-Scribe is working, just in the interests of efficiency. And I don’t know if the clerk can record them by hand, but I’m hoping that that might just speed up having to do a roll call for each vote. Let me confer with the clerk. Can I please ask Evelina if this is okay?

[52:41] That will be fine. Thank you. I’ll second that chair. Okay, so if I’m to understand correctly, Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Cudi are moving and seconding all opening of the PPMs and closing the PPMs, and we’re gonna vote by hand on that vote. We all on the same page here. Okay, Councilor Hillier is so clear, could that? Yes.

[53:12] Okay, well, here we go. This is good, I like it. So we’re gonna, we have a motion to open the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Cudi, all in favor, hand vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any questions of technical nature for staff? Or this is closings, where are we, I’m sorry. Sorry, Mr. Chair, this is closing. He didn’t, you had a mover for the last motion of 3.2, but no seconder, I’m happy to second it, so it’s efficient enough for discussion.

[53:50] Apologies, so I’m 3.2. So we’ve got a motion to move it. Staff recommendation and second it, any comments or questions for our call that vote? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Just wanna say this location is in Ward two. It is in the ARGIL BIA business corridor, very excited to see this project coming forward. I know it is the first of several that are in the works along that BIA corridor. I look forward to seeing some others coming forward in the near future, but I wanna thank the applicant for bringing this forward and bringing forward a proposal that will see some mixed use, residential and commercial.

[54:27] It will revitalize what is an aging plaza right now where better land utilization is possible. We’ve got great transit access right on the Dundas corridor, easy access to Quannas Park on the south side of Dundas with the Dundas streetscape master plan that was approved by council earlier in the year with partnerships with the ARGIL BIA, the enhanced connectivity that’s coming to the area. The timing on this is great. It will be the first of several, as I said, but also will align with some of the streetscape improvements that we’re already making.

[55:02] And of course, just a stone throw away. We’ve already got the approvals in place for the old Oak redevelopment of the London psychiatric hospital lands. So this is very, very positive news for the ARGIL area and I’m very happy to be able to support this today. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, just from the chair of the committee permits. I wanna echo that, this is terrific. This is a 10-story mixed commercial use, residential 334 units. I think this area is in a virtuous cycle.

[55:38] It’s gonna have momentum in an area of town that is ripe for this type of activity. I think this is just terrific news off of Hiberian Dundas. So this is great and I wanna thank the applicant for bringing it forward. Any other comments or questions? We have motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote. Close the votes, yes. Could we vote yes? Louis vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 325 South Hill Road West.

[56:14] We have a motion to open the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. I’ll look for a hand vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any questions of a technical nature for staff? Any members? Nope, okay, I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you and good afternoon committee members, staff and members of the public.

[56:45] My name is Alia Richards and I’m a planner with Zalen Capriamo Limited. And I’m here with my colleague, Matt Campbell, representing the client and owner of the lands 325 Southdale Road East. I’d just like to note that the schedule does say 325 Southdale Road West, but this is for East just to clarify that correction. The draft bylaw and the notice of application are in alignment with that addressing as well. I’d like to start by thanking staff for their continued work in processing this application.

[57:21] And we would like, we support the staff recommendation for approval with one minor adjustment requested to the draft zoning bylaw and which would be the removal of the holding provision as recommended by staff. The holding provision was put in place to ensure that adequate water servicing would be available for the development as proposed. And we have been able to obtain the necessary servicing reports from our consulting engineers that confirm adequate servicing is available on Southdale Road East for domestic flows and fire protection demands.

[57:58] As such, we request that committee members endorse this application as proposed by staff with the removal of the holding provision. And I’m available to answer any questions. Thank you for this opportunity to present this application. Thank you. I’ll look for members of the public that would like to address the committee on this item. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online, no one online, seeing none in the gallery. We have a motion to close the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Cuddy, so I will call that vote by hand vote.

[58:40] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, a question through you to staff as the word counselor wasn’t aware of the update. Could staff confirm before we even potentially again discussion removing a holding provision if they’ve been provided an opportunity to look at that and can speak to it at this time? If not, I wouldn’t be removing it. I’ll go to staff.

[59:15] Through the chair, we did receive the updated report and had an opportunity to review it. Staff were in agreement and we provided an updated by-law to the added agenda without the holding provision. Councilor. Thank you. I’m happy to move it with the updated by-law as per the added agenda. Clerk, do you have the updated by-law? Yes. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, so we have a motion moved and seconded. Any comments or questions from committee? Councilor Palosa. Thank you, just thank you to the applicant.

[59:47] It’s great and Phil, I live in the area and it is in alignment with the other town homes to the property and welcome to addition to the community. So thank you. Any other comments or questions? Many members are visiting. Councilors, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Palosa votes, yes. Cutty votes, yes. It was vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.4 regarding 952 Southdale, Road West.

[1:00:25] We have a motion to open the public participation meeting by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy and I’ll look for a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none, then I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee. That’s the clerk if there is someone online. The applicant is not here, I guess.

[1:01:10] So I will go to members of the public. They would like to address committee. Seeing none, I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online. Again. - Okay. So I will go to closing the PPM motion by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy and I’ll call a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I will put 3.4 on the floor for a motion. I’ll move it.

[1:01:50] Councilor Palosa moves it seconded by Councilor Cuddy. Any comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded by Councilor. Palosa votes, yes. Petty votes, yes. Louisa votes, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:02:43] Thank you, moving on, 3.5, 691 Fanshawe Park Road East. We have motion to open the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy, I’ll call it with a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee. That was a time. Can you hear me? Barely.

[1:03:16] I’ll hear. Yeah, can you hear you now? Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee and council. My name is Bennett DeSankovic with Montyth Brown Planning Consultants, who are representing our client, Mr. Ahmed. We support the staff recommendation for approval of the planning report to change the zoning on the lands at 691 Fanshawe Park Road East to permit a stacked town host development totaling 10 units. There would be two buildings, three and a half, there would be three and a half stories, four units in the front and six units in the back.

[1:03:52] Every 10 parking spaces in total, so one per unit, 25% lock coverage and 40% landscape open space on the site. Also in a many space in the southeast corner, the proposed development has been designed to have regard for the London planned policies regarding sea design and infill intensification. The townhouses will enhance the Fanshawe Park Road East and transitioning corridor while setting a high standard for future residential development in the area. The proposed development is an excellent example of residential infill and development will offer new housing options within this area of London.

[1:04:30] We’re here to answer any questions and thank you for your time. Thank you, I will look for anyone from the public that would like to address the committee. Yes, please, good afternoon. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Last night, no, not, I don’t have submissions yet, just a question, technical question if I may. I missed what the applicant said about the southeast corner. Oh, there was an area there for amenity area. Amenity, and what does that mean?

[1:05:05] It’s open space. Open space, okay, thank you. That’s my question, thank you. Okay, I’ll look for any other persons that would like to address the committee. Oscar Clerk, does there’s anyone else online? Seeing no one in the gallery and no one online, we have a motion to close the— Hold on, hold on, hi, can you hear me? I can, sir. Beautiful, okay, so I had a question, now I do have— Hold on a second, or hold on a second. I just wanna remind you, this is not a Q and A.

[1:05:39] You have five minutes to make your comments. If you have two questions of staff, I’ll note them and we’ll look to get some answers after you’re finished. Please give us your name and go ahead. Okay, so for the record, last name is Bloch, B-L-O-C-H, initial G. You’ll find in my report, in the city’s report, my email to Mr. Isaac DeKuster. I’m dismayed that my second email to Isaac DeKuster from November 4 did not make it to the report. I do wanna thank Mr. Pribill, my council member, for actually attending my property at 695 Fanshawe, to have a look at the actual reality at 691 Fanshawe.

[1:06:26] So thank you to Mr. Pribill. In my initial invitation to Mr. Pribill, I invited further councilors who ever wanted to come see the actual property. Nobody took me up on the invitation. Again, that invitation is still open. I totally understand that this meeting has pertains to this application is a feta complete. We’re just going through the motions here with the niceties, but nothing’s really going to change. I do want to say that I realize that my neighborhood is going to go through a change the next few years from 70 year old private dwellings to a multi-residential.

[1:07:02] It would behoove the city. We elected you. It’s not that you tell us what to do. Basically, we tell you the councilors what to do. It would behoove the city not to lose its constituents to actually have a town hall and advise our neighborhood as to the future plans for the city that’s going to be changed into a multi-residential neighborhood and not simply a 70 year old single dwelling. I continue to maintain that the project, the application as it stands, is much too aggressive for the property for the lot itself.

[1:07:40] Candidly 10 parking spaces is too naive, too optimistic. And I think the overflow is going, I know the overflow is going to affect the neighborhood. And I invite anybody, any member present today to look at the map and realize that overflow parking will go on to or seep into the side streets. And that’s going to present a problem throughout the various seasons. And that’s going also in addition to the logistic problem of snow clearing, et cetera, but also to the enjoyment of the property by the existing residents in that neighborhood who are tax payers.

[1:08:24] I’m also quite dismayed that there are no assurances made to me being the land owner of the adjacent property as to the development itself. Basically, if there is the agent here for the principal and Benita, and I apologize to Benita for not remembering your last name, had the agent turned to me at 695 and proposed some deal where in his project could be expanded and make it a more fulsome project, I would have happily spoken to him or her. Nonetheless, no assurances were made by the city or anyone to me about the duration of the project.

[1:09:02] What recourse I have as a private resident if the city services to my property are affected at all during this construction project? What recourse do I have if there’s any structural damage to my property? During this past summer, there was a road work done in the streets behind my property and myself and my neighbor, we discussed it, we felt tremors, our houses were trembling with the road work that was done. Now, with the project happening right next door to me, I know there’s going to be structural repercussions to my house, I need to know what recourse I have.

[1:09:42] And to say that it’s a civil matter is flippant and pithy. I don’t have the finances to go and hire civil counsel. I would think the city would at some point reflect me instead of this rush, this helter-skelter rush to develop also, it would be nice if it protected the residents already here. I have no assurance vis-a-vis the fence between myself and the developer. I have currently one dog, but normally I have more than one animal on the property. I need that fence taken down and erected within one day.

[1:10:15] Otherwise, I have, again, I, what am I going to do with my animals and my property? There’s a gate there on my property to avoid the animals running all over the neighborhood. I need that gate placed as well on that day that the fence is going to be taken down and then put up again. Also, I have no assurances that there won’t be any cranes hovering over my property. I’m certainly not in a position to buy insurance for any construction damage caused by the developer. And again, the city has given me no assurances and told me to turn to a civil lawyer if I have insurance with cranes.

[1:10:56] So, is that the five minutes? 30 seconds. - 30 seconds, yeah. Okay, bottom line is there’s a zeal to develop. I understand that regretfully, but it would be nice if the city gave me assurances beyond that I can turn to civil recourse. That’s really it. Thank you. I’ll look for other comments or questions for the committee from public. Anyone online, Clark? Seeing no one in the gallery. We have motion to close the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Second by Councillor Cudi, I’ll look for a hand vote.

[1:11:34] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, there were a couple of questions raised. I’ll just go to staff. What recourse do neighboring properties have for structural damage due to construction? To Mr. Chair, it would be the city is not involved in a site plan application for less than 10 units.

[1:12:08] There would be a building permit process, but if there was any damage caused, it would have to be a civil matter between the two property owners. Okay, and that’s kind of similar question regarding cranes causing damage. I would imagine the answer is the same. To Mr. Chair, yes, there and I would assume that there would be permission required if cranes were going to be over top of somebody’s property. Okay, thank you.

[1:12:39] And finally, regarding fencing and pets, where does that responsibility lie and make sure the existing fencing is maintained? Three, Mr. Chair, the applicant on his concept plan has, they’ve shown a proposed fence of 1.8 meters high with regarding to the existing fencing, it depends whose property it lies on. But I don’t think the fencing will be removed unless they’re gonna be putting up the new fence.

[1:13:18] But I can defer to the applicant on that to just confirm that. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant would like to just address the concern of fencing. Will the existing fencing be maintained? Yes, we will make sure that the animals are not gonna escape. Okay, thank you, thank you. Okay, those are the only questions I had. I’ll go to committee. I see Councilor Hillier has his hand up, so I’ll go to Council here earlier. Thank you. I’m looking at the proposed development and the overview of it. And I’m very curious of a snow removal pattern, ‘cause I’m looking at it and going, how the heck and where would you put the snow to remove this?

[1:13:56] And I can see why the neighbors would be a little concerned ‘cause it appears that it would be going into those hedgerows on the left and the right. And on the other side of it, I’m also looking at the proposed design of the property. Where would garbage be contained? So I’ll start with staff regarding snow removal and garbage mitigation. Through the chair, as Ms. O’Hagan had indicated, this development is for 10 units, which does not require site plan approval. So typically, if it were to go through site plan, they can truck, they snow off the property.

[1:14:34] And, but that would be a private arrangement with the developer. Now, I would suggest that you could ask the applicant the questions regarding the snow removal and garbage. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant. What are the plans for snow removal? Yes, it would be for heavy snow days such as today. It would be trucked offsite, small shoveled amounts of snow could be maintained at the ends of the dry piles. As far as the garbage, that would be picked up municipal curbside, I believe the units from the back would bring their garbage up to the front.

[1:15:12] And then the garbage truck would be picking them up from Fanshawe Park Road. Councilor. There is no outdoor storage for the large garbage cans. I’ll go to the applicant this act. Can you confirm there’s no outdoor storage for garbage? We will revisit a garbage pad if needed. Councillor. Thank you. Just a point of order. Dr. Mayor Lewis. We have no motion on the floor. Technical questions are before the PPM. As Councillors, we do need to get motions on the floor to frame the debate.

[1:15:44] Having said that, I’m willing to move the staff recommendations so that we’ve got a motion on the floor that we can discuss around. Okay, fair enough. We’ve got motion moved, Councilor Hillyer has seconded it. So continue on with any questions or comments from committee members. I don’t see any. So we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Opposed, about yes. Any votes, yes. Lewis vote, yes. Opposed in the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:16:19] Okay, moving on to 3.6. This is regarding 1927 Richmond Street requests to remove a heritage listed property from the register. We have motion to open the public participation meeting, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, and hand vote, please. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I will look to the applicant who wants to address the committee.

[1:17:04] Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi there, my name is Megan Rivard. I’m a senior heritage consultant with Stantec Consulting. Here are representing the applicant, the Wunder family. I wanted to say thank you to staff for their review of a request for de-listing, as well as the committees, and appreciate the feedback. Thanks so much. Thank you, I’ll look for any other comments or questions from the public.

[1:17:37] That was a time to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Dear members of the PEC committee, Council and general public, my name is Christopher Drake and I’m speaking to express my support for the removal of the property located at 1927 Richmond Street from the heritage list. As a resident of North London, I believe this is an important step toward addressing the critical educational needs of our growing community.

[1:18:13] I have carefully reviewed the Stantec report regarding this property and fully support the points it raises, particularly the assertion that this home is not currently designated as a heritage property. The removal from the heritage list would allow for the land to be utilized in a way that directly benefits the community. North London is experiencing rapid growth right now, with a particular need for additional educational facilities. To my understanding, the London District Catholic School Board is the fastest growing school board in the province, and the creation of a new high school in North London is their number one priority.

[1:18:53] This makes the construction of a new school in the area a provincial priority. In 1927, Richmond Street presents a centrally located, high demand piece of land that could serve this purpose. I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is to address the shortage of educational services in our area. As a resident, I’ve witnessed firsthand how overwhelming the lack of sufficient educational resources is, especially given the plan development in the immediate area. There is a genuine need for more school facilities to keep pace with our growing population.

[1:19:26] Removing this property from the heritage list and repurposing it for a new school will directly address this pressing issue. I believe it is far more beneficial to our community to see this land used for a school rather than for any high density development, which could exacerbate the strain on local infrastructure and services. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the property has been on the heritage list for more than 20 years without being formally designated as a heritage home. Professional experts have concluded that the home does not meet the criteria for such designation.

[1:20:03] This reinforces the argument that the home does not warrant the protection it has been afforded under the current heritage listing. The construction of an additional school in North London is not just a benefit to our area, it is a necessity. The approval to de-list this property and proceed with building a new school would be a crucial step toward alleviating some of the educational challenges our city faces. It would also pave the way for responsible sustainable growth in the north end, ensuring that our community can thrive for years to come. I urge you to consider the long-term benefits of removing 1927 Richmond Street from the heritage list and to prioritize the educational needs of our community.

[1:20:41] Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Thank you. Thank you, one for other members of the public. Would like to address committee. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online and I don’t see anyone going to the mic. So we have a motion to close the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, I’ll call the vote, hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[1:21:14] I’ll move the staff recommendation. Okay, and moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, and I’ll open the floor for discussion. Okay, I don’t see any hands raised online. Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote. Close the votes, yes. Cudi votes, yes. Louis, vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:21:49] Moving on to 3.7, this is regarding 93 King Street. I’m motion to open the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, I’ll call the hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of technical nature from committee members or visiting Councillors? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant, the applicant would like to address committee. It’s a clerk, if there’s someone online. Okay, I’ll do members of the public, would like to address committee on this item.

[1:22:33] Seeing none in the gallery, again I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online. Seeing none, okay. We have a motion to close with PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, I’ll call it with a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll put this item on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. Deputy Mayor Lewis moves the staff recommendation, seconded by Councillor Cudi, I’ll open the floor for our discussion.

[1:23:14] Motion moved and seconded, I will call the vote. Close the votes, yes. Deputy votes, yes. Louis votes, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.8. This is regarding some site plan, control area bylaw, housekeeping, and council directed amendments, and staff have brought forward.

[1:23:54] I’ll look for, well, we have the motion by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and seconded by Councillor Cudi to open the public participation meeting, I’ll call that hand vote now. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll go to the public now to see if they would like to address the committee. Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:24:25] It’s Mike Wallace from London Development Institute here, just to give a few comments on this item. This would be my first of three times the microphone today, so thank you for indulging me. I do want to bring attention to the Auburn letter that was attached to your added agenda, what they have there, and I’m not taking, I’m not opposing anything, I’m just pointing some things out to Mr. Chairman that’s in these changes to the zoning bylaw that are being proposed, and first of all, of course, we appreciate staff’s work on making sure that they meet the provincial legal requirements in terms of 10 residential units, and last not being included.

[1:25:16] We do appreciate the city taking the initiative on the bird-friendly standards. It’ll be a good opportunity for the city to see what the difficulties, if there are any, in obtaining that type of window coverage, and what those costs will be, and how that would reflect in the private sector. One thing I just would like to point out to Council, and to Committee, is that the encouragement of a minimum amount of native species and landscaping has been on the books for a long time, and we’ve said over and over again that that’s great, but provide us a list, and there still is not a list.

[1:25:57] Even in the report, it says they’re still working on it, and it’s been on the books for a long time, and it’s very difficult for our community, our development community, to meet those requirements when there is no list for us to work from, and so we would encourage you to encourage staff to get that list done in an exponential manner. The two other points I like to make, Mr. Chair, one, you have a minimum number of electric vehicle charging stations, I think it’s a 5%.

[1:26:31] We even checked to see if that was even legal for you to do, and it came back that it is possible. As long as those charge stations aren’t for the public, if private sector, 40 units or more has it for their residents, it’s not something that the public can just come in and use, but the fact of the matter is that this is market-driven. Our developers and builders will put in the facilities that they believe will attract customers and make for a better quality of life for those who choose to live with, to buy it or rent from them.

[1:27:05] It’s market-driven, yet the councils of the day, don’t have to tell us how many electric vehicle spots we have to have. It just isn’t, it’s what frustrates the industry, that we know that the electrical vehicle is coming in the marketplace, maybe not as fast as people thought it was, but it’s there, and we will meet the demand. Let the market decide. Why should city council decide? The final point I want to make is that we’re very much interested in looking at the preparation of a green development guidelines, and we have no issue with the development of the green guidelines.

[1:27:49] We need to remind council that in many cases, guidelines become a must-have and not a like-to-have through other development applications and other guidelines that are within the, whether they’re in the London Plan or in other areas. So if we’re going to make them guidelines, let’s make sure that they are guidelines for us to follow and not requirements that staff tell us that we have to do. So we look forward to that discussion, and that’s all I have to say on this particular topic. And I do, I know in the letter from Auburn, they did make a request for some further information and review from staff, so I’ll leave that up to you.

[1:28:28] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Look for other, please, sir. Give us your name, you have five minutes. We okay down there? There we can. Okay, my name is Brendan Samuels. I am the Chair of the City of London’s Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. I’m here to speak as an individual, not on behalf of my committee, but I just wanted to acknowledge that this item is of interest to our committee’s annual work plan. We have expressed that we intend to provide comments on green development standards as it pertains to the climate emergency action plan. I also want to highlight a comment from Mr. Wallace about the native plant list.

[1:29:03] This is also on our work plan from 2024. Our committee includes people with ecological understanding of native plants. We’d be happy to support staff’s work on developing a list. I have to disagree with some of the things that were said. I don’t think the market is going to solve the immense risks to human health posed by climate change, but that’s another conversation. Just to give you a brief overview of bird-friendly design for those who might not be super familiar with it, every year in North America, at least one billion birds are killed by colliding with glass on buildings. This is a problem we know how to fix. There are simple ways we can modify building exteriors that significantly reduce the risk of birds being killed.

[1:29:40] This is not expensive. I work on this for my PhD at the university. I’ve supported planners and many other jurisdictions in Ontario and beyond to implement bird-safe design into their bylaws. I think it is important to distinguish between guidelines and requirements and recognizing that when things are guidelines, there’s many more opportunities for things to be discretionary. We can choose to do this or we can choose not to. We might choose to do it in part. Those outcomes tend to be a lot less effective. And in Canada, it is actually illegal for buildings to kill birds and so making sure that we are in compliance with the law and that our bylaws are consistent with the law makes sense.

[1:30:19] You might recall for those who were on the previous council that I was here in 2019 holding a dead bird in this exact spot that hit a window on City Hall and was killed. That was a hermit thrush. I’ve since been contacted by staff and community members who are familiar with birds being killed at Stony Creek Community Center, the Bot Swift Community Center. In fact, Councillor Schuyler Frank reported a bird to me that was killed there. The East Lyons Community Center is now being retrofitted with film to prevent bird collisions. That was something the community supported through neighborhood decision making. That’s all to say, and I want to echo something that Mike Wallace said last January. The city should be following the golden rule and leading by example.

[1:30:54] When we ask developers to adopt things like bird friendly, we should be doing that with municipal facilities. And so I strongly support that being included on your work today. I want to highlight also, it’s important to look at the ongoing renewal of infrastructure of the city, not just new buildings, but all windows need to be replaced every 20 to 25 years anyway. Those are opportunities through renovations to swap them out for bird friendly components. I also just want to highlight some concerns I have with the submission from Auburn developments with respect to Bill 23 and what authority that the municipality has to update site plan control regarding green development standards.

[1:31:33] I’m going to quote a letter from the previous minister of housing, Steve Clark, dated February 2023. It was not the intention of the government through Bill 23 to prevent municipalities from using site plan control to promote green development standards. I wish to clarify that aspects of green standards that are not brought into Ontario’s building code because they do not involve building construction, including green infrastructure, cool paving, biodiversity, tree plantings, et cetera, will continue to be optional standards that can be required through municipal bylaw and implemented through site plan control. To ensure these matters are understood, the ministry plans to update its online site plan guidance to reflect green building standards in 2023.

[1:32:10] During the transition period until the green standards are authorized in the building code, we would anticipate that municipalities will continue to use site plan control to address green standards to the extent possible. I’ll note that the city of Hamilton, the town of Halton Hills, have adopted green development standards since Bill 23 received royal assent. So I would really encourage you to confer with your staff, particularly legal council, to find out what is within the scope of what the municipality can enact through site plan control. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

[1:32:54] The clerk says there’s no one online. Please sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. My name is Brian Salt and I’m the founder and director of wildlife rehabilitation at Salthaven Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Center located in Strathroy. We, I just wanted to back up what the previous speaker was alluding to these feather friendly window decals that can be put up are very, very effective. We bought our last property here and in Regina, Saskatchewan on a major migratory route and outfitted the windows with these feather friendly decals.

[1:33:35] They are extremely effective. Before we put them up, we were getting maybe a bird strike every second or third day because we have so many windows there. Once the bird friendly decals were put up, reduced that to one, maybe every two months. So they are very, very effective, not expensive and very easily applied. So I just wanted to back up what has been previously said. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Look for others that would like to speak.

[1:34:10] Firming there’s no one online. Okay, I don’t see anyone else coming to the mic. We have a motion to close the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cutty and I’ll call the hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Very happy to move the staff recommendation on this. Look for a seconder, Councillor Cutty seconds. Go back to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair and through you.

[1:34:42] So this is partially arising, and I know there were other directions on other things, but partially arising from something that Councillor Frank and I brought forward in the last iteration of PEC asking for the native species landscaping, the bird friendly piece, the, and I’m actually quite happy to see the removing of the references to mandatory pre-application as well. I think that’s just a bit of housekeeping that’s easy to take care of and saves everybody some time. I think it’s really important to underscore as well that when we talk about electrical vehicle charging stations, even in the direction that we asked for in the last iteration of this committee was not requiring charging stations to actually be installed, but to actually be roughed in so that future proofing was happening as electric vehicles roll into the marketplace more prominently than they are today.

[1:35:43] And I think that that actually represents good planning. Rough it in now so that you don’t have to come back to us and rip up asphalt and create new permits and everything else to rough them back in later. So very supportive of this. I know Councillor Frank’s not with us today, but I’m sure that she’s probably quite happy to see that the motion that she brought forward has come back with some recommendations to be implemented in the site plan control bylaw. I agree with Mr. Samuels that if we’re gonna look for bird friendly standards in the private sector, we need to lead by example at city facilities as well.

[1:36:20] I think that that’s a very fair and reasonable comment and I’m glad to see that in there. So quite happy to support this moving forward. I do through you chair have a question for staff and it picks up on what we heard from Mr. Wallace. Can staff provide a timeline update on when a list of acceptable native species for planting consideration can be brought forward? I know that there are a number of considerations. Soil quality impacts what plantings can go and in what places available space impacts that, but I do agree with Mr. Wallace, if we don’t actually know what’s an acceptable native species planting from the list, it’s very hard to meet that requirement in site plan.

[1:37:06] So I’m wondering if we can get an update on that. Post staff. Through the chair, we do rely on professional landscape architects, both internal to the city and consultants submitting applications for that. Information on what is a native species, but if we do want something more concrete, we can look to update it and add something to our next design standards and requirements manual the next time we review it to add that information.

[1:37:40] Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you for that and thank you Ms. Ohegan. I think that’d be prudent so that there is a list there. Obviously there may be some variations from that list. As you indicated, there are professionals in this field. The list may be updated or changed from time to time. And so it may not always reflect necessarily the latest and best practices in the industry at the time of an application being received. But I think if there’s a guideline list to provide that preliminary consideration for applications, that would be helpful. So I didn’t hear and I’m not gonna try and tie a direction into this specific application.

[1:38:16] I’ll take that offline, follow up with Ms. Ohegan and Ms. McNeely later about whether they need specific direction through a future PEC meeting or not. But I do think that having that list available in the future would make some sense. And I’ll just leave it at that, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. Go to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for recognizing me and really appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments about supporting this recommendation. I do wanna thank Mr. Samuels and Mr. Self for coming out and taking an opportunity here to speak to bird-friendly designs.

[1:38:51] I know in the previous council, we designated our city as a bird-friendly city. So it just makes sense that we have some designs that go with it. I do also wanna just mention about the green development guidelines looking forward to that coming to us at the beginning of next year. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the committee? Just a from the chair question. My understanding is one of the reasons for coming forward is to streamline our processing procedures.

[1:39:29] Just one of our staff could elaborate a bit on how this will accomplish in that regard. To you, Mr. Chair. So we did bring this update forward to incorporate those sustainability measures. And at the same time we were reviewing the site plan manual to and identified that there have been some legislation changes that we wanted to make sure we’re reflecting in that. So just kind of make sure that everyone’s reading from the same page in terms of what the requirements are and what development goes to site plan process.

[1:40:05] Okay, great. I just wanna thank staff for doing what they can. I know you work with outside with the developers in the community as well and trying to find new guidelines the way we can do things more efficiently without but still doing things effectively. And I think that this achieves that. Is there any other comments or questions from many members? Do we have motion moved and seconded? I will call the vote. Close the votes, yes. Cutty vote, yes.

[1:40:39] Louis vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.9. This is regarding 1922 Highland Heights and 205 Commissioners Road East. We have a motion to open the public participation meeting by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. I’ll do a hand vote. Pull those up, stains. Move your vote, yes. Close the vote, the motion carries four with one recuse. Any questions of a technical nature for staff this time?

[1:41:19] Okay, seeing none, I will look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address many. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you through the chair. My name is Caitlin Crowley, senior planner with Silenka Priemmo and the authorized agent for Highland Country Club. I would first like to thank all the surrounding neighbors who took the time to submit comments on our Zoning Amendment application and who came here this afternoon. I would also like to thank Melanie Vivian from the city for her work on this application as well. I did have a chance to review all of the comments submitted in the staff report from those surrounding neighbors circulated on the application.

[1:41:55] I did do my best to provide written responses to those comments and those responses were included in the original pec agenda for everyone’s review. So I won’t go over those in great detail as they were also sent separately to a neighbor representative for their review and information prior to this meeting. But what I would like to explain is that this application is intended to bring a portion of the Highland Country Club property into conformity with the London plan. The land subject to rezoning the golf course should have been included in the original OS1 zone that is on the rest of the property.

[1:42:29] And the entirety of the property is within the green space place type in the London plan. So this application seeks to bring this portion of the property proposed for a maintenance shop into the same zone as the rest of the golf course in order to permit a building to be used for the operation of the golf course. There has been a minor technical error throughout the staff report and in some of the comments and questions. So I just wanted to clarify that there are 17 parking spaces proposed and not 25 as noted in a few different locations. So I’ve also had a chance to read and review the staff report.

[1:43:04] And while I generally agree with staff’s recommendation and their proposed by-law, there isn’t, there is one item on page one of their staff report for this application in section B, which are the items to be considered at the site plan application stage. Item number three in this section states that the removal of the access between the existing single detached dwelling and the West property boundary should be considered through the site plan process. Well, yes, we are diverting traffic away from this lane way through the proposed application and through future site plan into the staff parking lot.

[1:43:40] This lane way is still essential for the resident of the single detached dwelling, as well as for the operation of the golf course overall. This lane way is still proposed to be used by work carts and we do not want to have this lane way removed. So I did submit a letter to the added pec agenda as well to show where this lane way that I’m referring to is on the property and formally request that this item be removed from the recommendation brought to council and that this lane way remain as existing for the golf course operations and the resident of the dwelling. There will be far less traffic on this stretch of the lane way, however it is still essential.

[1:44:16] The proposed zoning bylaw amendment seeks to bring this portion of the golf course into conformity with the London plan and construct a new maintenance shop accessory to the operations of the golf course. The current maintenance shop is too small for the operation and it is proposed for demolition subject to approval. The new proposed shop will be subject to site plan approval and will be subject to all regulations of the building code and it will be held to a higher standard than the current building and will be safer than the existing maintenance shop. The current vehicular access to the existing maintenance shop is located at 205 Commissioner Road East.

[1:44:53] This entrance slash exit is not proposed to change as the same vehicles that enter it currently are proposed to enter it through the proposed maintenance shop. And the new proposed maintenance shop is critical to the continued operation and maintenance of this golf course to continue its level of service to the community as a form of recreational open space. So as previously mentioned, we agree with staff’s recommendation and proposed bylaw. However, request that B3 on page one of the staff report be removed from the recommendation going forward to council.

[1:45:27] So I thank you all for your attention this afternoon and I will be available to answer any comments that the committee or public may have. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, my name’s Jenny Schreff and I’m resident of Highland Estates. We’re here today as a community to formally express our opposition to the proposed zoning change that would permit the construction of a 14,500 square foot maintenance facility building and a 2517 spot parking lot adjacent to our residential homes.

[1:46:05] The main issue is the size of the maintenance building and the number of parking spots. We in city bylaw regulation states that the maximum lot coverage is 10%. Therefore, for the parcel land in question, the largest or the biggest you can build a building would be 400 meters, sorry, 4,000 square feet and not 14,500 square feet. That’s a very large building behind our homes. That’s like five story, that’s like five homes. There are two stories high put together.

[1:46:39] So just think of the noise and the traffic that will be there. We do understand that the traffic does come off commissioners. So we’re not questioning the amount of trucks and the same amount of vehicles. I think it will be the same. But right now they go to the back of the golf course. We don’t hear that all day long. But having an industrial building behind us, we will hear that noise all day long, including lighting. You are going to secure your parking lot, your building, and the lighting will shine onto our properties.

[1:47:16] It’s too close. And I need to give you a visual, because we are very upset over this whole building, because we feel it is far too big. The building, the other issues we have with proposal too is that there isn’t enough detailed reports or actual data to confirm that the sound might, noise traffic, and the water and the drainage and the safety security issues will not impact the residents of Highland Estates. The data should be provided for us now. It’s very vague.

[1:47:48] It’s very vague in the whole proposal. We do not feel we have the right to know that now, as this is our only chance to voice our opposition to this. There has been no consultation with our residents and Highland Golf Course throughout this whole process. I do know they started this whole process in 2023 and have not consulted anybody in the neighborhood in regards to this whole process. So we’ve kind of been left out in the dark. So I think for us, we did have a big meeting.

[1:48:34] And I think we are kind of feeling that we haven’t really been well-informed as a community. We also are feeling that our representation at the city level has been very minimal too. We do know that Elizabeth Pelosi had to recuse herself as she lives in the area. But I think we were just as a community. We were asking who represents us. We did know that Stephen Hillier was one of our representatives. But it’s been very late in the process.

[1:49:08] And so we are now reaching out to him and asking him many questions. But we just feel we just really, really need more time. So a lot of part of what we discussed and as a community is that we really would like to defer the decision today. And we’d like to defer it for many reasons. Number one, we just feel we need proper presentations from an elected official on our behalf. As I said, Elizabeth Pelosi did recuse herself as she lives in the area. But we just really, really feel we need a lot more information and direction on this whole project.

[1:49:44] Secondly, we do feel that we would like to get legal counsel and live at legal counsel on the size of the building. We really feel the size of the building is very unfair and is really going to impact our living and what we do in our neighborhood. And third, the golf course has been planning to change this building, as I said, for a while. And there’s been no consultation with the neighborhood. And last, we do see— I mean, I’m up at 6 o’clock in the morning.

[1:50:20] I do see a lot of the trucks in the cars come by along the road line. But they go to the back of the golf course or to the middle of the golf course. And then we don’t see them all day long. We don’t hear it. 30 seconds. But now we will, because there’ll be right behind us. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you’ll have five minutes. Good afternoon.

[1:50:53] My name is Michael Katzmanes. esteemed council members, staff, public. Thank you very much for hearing us out today. As my neighbor Jenny mentioned, a few of us did get together. Over the weekend, we have been getting together periodically to discuss the building in question. We have a lot of concerns with regards to the decisions that have been made up front. And without our input, we feel from a property value standpoint, having a structure of this size come in and not conducting a proper ambient noise study to understand what a 16-bay garage is going to look like.

[1:51:38] This is the back of my home. I overlook the golf course. I’m going to be having this 16-bay garage opening and closing. My friend, Greg, over there’s the groundskeeper. He starts— they start very early in the morning. Everybody comes in at around 6, 5, depending on the start of the day. Nothing gets started within the regular work hours. So we do hear some ambient noise that you normally do not hear during the day with other things. So that is very disruptive first thing in the morning.

[1:52:14] I ask you all picture yourselves waking up at 6 o’clock with a 16-bay garage opening and closing. And I do realize that with respect to the zoning and what we’re here for today, it’s to allow the zoning to change, to be able to continue a lot of this. Now, a lot of this we have gotten the paperwork is really— there’s no empirical evidence or data that says what we’re going to do is this. It’s just a lot of kicking the can down the road, which is by our standards unacceptable. We have not been heard.

[1:52:50] Every single one of us has a vested interest with regards to our property values, the additional security, the additional noise, the additional environmental impacts with regards to deliveries that are being made, and being left there with regards to water flowing, with regards to the ambient lighting that will be created throughout the entire course of the early wee mornings and whatnot, not to mention the water flow and how that water flow will be disruptive. These are a lot of things that we don’t have answers to, that we’re asking the members today, just please hear us.

[1:53:28] Actually, I know you hear us, but just listen to us. We are asking for you guys to put this off and let’s get some empirical data, some actual evidence that shows that you know what? These guys, they have nothing to worry about. There’s all of the manure that will be dumped there, will be okay, there’ll be no seepage, weepage, or leaking happening in the environment. These guys are okay, they have nothing to worry about. Everything that keeps that grass green and that water blue is not going to be coming anywhere near me or my neighbors or my son or my family or any one of our members. None of that has been proven, which we’re just asking you to hear us out today and just hear what everyone has to say, just from within, rather than with all of the technical things that you’ll hear from the planning committee and again, the Highland Golf course that they’ve done this and they’ve done that and they looked into it and very well.

[1:54:23] Yes, there could be a check in the box and we have met the technicalities with regards to some legal parameters and requirements very well. But where is the empirical data that says that none of us are going to be bothered? That has not been done, no one has looked into any of that. That is what we’re asking you to do for us today. That is it and that is all, thank you. Thank you for hearing me today. Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes.

[1:55:02] Liliana Pereira, can you hear me? Speak up just a bit. Liliana Pereira, there we go, okay, I’ll stand here. Council staff, members of the public, I did send in like a dozen other directly affected neighbors kind of detailed list of concerns. So I think they’re public and hopefully you’ve seen them. So I don’t want to read those out to you today. I just want to highlight a few things to kind of paint a picture for you because many of you may not have been on site and seen how close this proposed building is and this rezoning, I mean, there’s a residential home there right now.

[1:55:48] So I’m not sure why that’s so easily going to be turned and rezoned, but what that’s going to look like for us on a day to day basis is so the whole line of the Edwin homes, a dozen homes there, our backyards, our very narrow backyards, we don’t have deep backyards, very narrow, we’re, for example, we’re within a few feet of the groundskeeper’s home and then this proposed 14,500 square foot, they say one story, but it’s a two story, one story, right?

[1:56:24] Behind us is just behind that groundskeeper home. So it’s meters away. So one of the things is safety is a massive concern among the others. Now we have a lot of issues with crime in the area, I’m sure all over London, but in the area and homelessness and what happens is that the maintenance building now is tucked away away from all residential homes and in this proposed area, security will not involve a gate or 24 hour like man security, right?

[1:57:04] It’ll probably be cameras and the problem with that is it won’t matter. Crime will find its way just off of commissioners into this area for clandestine activity. So our backyards are all left very vulnerable. We and our families are now in a very vulnerable position if this happens. Drainage is a big concern and I know it’s already a concern, the current drainage plan is poor and not adequate. I don’t trust that the drainage issue is going to improve or even stay the same, it’s going to get worse.

[1:57:43] And if you see all those homes when it rains, a normal rain, you’d understand. We have our insurance company saying, you have to prove to us you have adequate drainage. We’re not going to be ensuring you for water damage going forward. So that’s a concern for my family and I. It was mentioned a little bit about our property values. I don’t know what you can do to help us now if this kind of industrial building behind us and the property values will go down certainly. I don’t think you can help that, that’s just a fact.

[1:58:18] I will ask some difficult questions at the end here. The other and it was mentioned too was the noise. So on a day to day basis, this noise level, so we have an existing lane way. And yes, perhaps the trucks frequency won’t change. I think it’ll change a little bit because you’re kind of building a two-laner coming in for some reason. So there must be an increase, right? But, and maybe what’s dumped on a different parking lot is going to come this way now. But what’s going to happen is currently the lane way right next to where we sit and enjoy a coffee.

[1:58:57] That lane way, the trucks they pass and they go and they do their day to day business in the current location, whether it’s been there 100 years or 50, the proposal is going to see that happen on a 630 to 330 basis. We’re going to hear all the, all the commotion, the interactions, the cleaning of the vehicles, the backing up, everything. You can imagine an industrial area that’s hub, you know, hustling and bustling to maintain the golf course. We’re not opposed to a new maintenance building. We love its current location.

[1:59:32] We think that’s fantastic. So this is going to highly interfere with our reasonable enjoyment of our properties, right? And disrupt us in that enjoyment and in the folks that work from home. 30 seconds. Highly disruptive. So quick, hard questions. I’d like to know if there’s a plan to reassess our property taxes, if this goes through. That’s an important one. I’d also like to understand why Elizabeth Pelosi, Pelosi could not represent us.

[2:00:06] I still don’t understand that. And also, is there full disclosure of council and staff of folks that are members of the golf course? Respectfully, I ask those hard questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thanks, my name is Yvonne, can you hear me? My name is Yvonne Leung. I’m a resident in the Highland Estates, also on Edwin Drive. My property is right at the corner, right at the end of Edwin Drive.

[2:00:41] And so two parts of my property back onto the golf course, one of which will be facing the proposed maintenance facility. When I purchased this lot, we were actually one of the first people to build in the area. It’s the largest lot in that area. We were very excited to have a big backyard. I have three young children, two four-year-old twins and a six-year-old. And we were very happy to have a big backyard to enjoy. We bought the lot knowing that there was a laneway in the back.

[2:01:14] And so we are used to having some cars pass by at certain hours of the day. But as my resident members have said, they drive by. They go to the maintenance facility, which is far away and we don’t hear their noise. I’m expressing the same concern as many people have already spoken about having a very large maintenance facility, very close to our backyard. It is in visible view, just across from our groundskeeper’s lot. It is, yes, a one-story building, but as people have said, it’s 15,000 square feet.

[2:01:47] The size of the building was chosen based on the size of the golf course, not based on the size of the lot. And we don’t understand why. If this small area is being rezoned, why can it then be merged with the rest of the golf course and then justify having such a huge building in that area? And essentially, this puts this to be an industrial building in our backyards. I am concerned about safety. This facility will be housing large quantities of fertilizer, pesticides.

[2:02:19] There are going to be fuel tanks on the side of the building that is facing my property. And as I said, I’m worried about having my children there. I’m concerned about water drainage. As people have already alluded, we have a major drainage problem. Again, I bought my property knowing that the golf course actually has drainage going right into my backyard and out through an easement. I accept that, but now with the additional development, there’s going to be more concrete in that area. I worry about soil erosion. And I have included a picture, I think, to a council when I emailed about a lake that formed in my backyard when it was raining.

[2:02:52] And I’m just concerned that this will just be exacerbated further. I’m concerned about noise and pollution. People have already alluded to that. And then just general decrease in enjoyment of my backyard, which is what the whole purpose of me getting this place was. I’m concerned about lack of community engagement, which has already been stated. I would like to know, yes, why we don’t dispute having to have a new maintenance facility. It makes sense that it should be brought to code and to be brought to current standards. But why does it have to be moved from the place where it is already?

[2:03:25] That has been accepted for 100 years. And now to be disruptive to the rest of us. So that’s a concern. And the last thing, oh, and then the finally, and I appreciate that Zalinka has responded to some of our concerns. But many of the responses are, this will be addressed during the site plan approval, which is a process at which we have zero say. We have no way to voice our concern or be heard or have any assurance that anybody would listen to us and take our thoughts into consideration.

[2:04:01] And based on the way the plan is put right now, I’m not really sure that there is much consideration. I noticed that there was a large swath of trees that has been proposed on one side of the facility so that it can be covered facing the Gulf Country Club so that people, the golfers, don’t have to look at the building. And yet our side is uncovered. So I just don’t think that a lot of thought was put into the people who live around that area. And I am concerned that if this is approved at this point, we will have no say going forward.

[2:04:34] Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Yes, my name’s Alfonso Balasoni. I’m also one of the many residents here from Highland Estates, as you can see, this is a big issue for us. I think most of my neighbors have done an excellent job highlighting the concerns. I mean, essentially we want to make sure that we think none of the time has been spent here.

[2:05:09] It’s quite clear, there’s a lot of questions. Even the representative from Zalenka made an objection to one of the staff for recommendations about deleting the access row, which is a huge issue what we brought up. I mean, it’s pretty clear. There needs to be more work done here, more consultation with us as a resident. I mean, they’ve been looking at this since 2023. Why wouldn’t they reach out to us? We were all very professional people. We would easily been able to negotiate or come to an agreement without having to come to this, right? So I think the points raised by my fellow neighbors, I don’t want to reiterate, but there’s definitely some key points for sure the size of the building.

[2:05:49] Absolutely, when you think about a one acre lot that they’re rezoning, which is about 5,000 square meters, the zoning by-law clearly states always want 10% lot coverage, which is about 500 square meters. There’s been pretty, Zalenka’s been pretty tricky at saying, well, we’re just going to incorporate the entire area of the golf course to justify the size. Sure, that’s a convenient way of getting around, justifying the size. But again, there’s the significant issues with that we brought up with noise traffic study, which all of my neighbors have done a great job illustrating that in reading Zalenka’s letter, which they’ve done a good job, but they just kick it down the road to SPA.

[2:06:30] I’m involved in development business and I know how that works. And I think there’s way too many concerns and it’s a very sensitive area to kick it down to SPA level. That needs to be addressed with proper data for, again, I think it’s pretty clear and I’m asking the members of PAC to defer decision today to later on, have more involvement with staff and us maybe come to a proper resolution. I think that’d be the most common sense outcome at this point.

[2:07:02] Again, thank you guys for your time. You do an excellent job for the city and we just hope you consider our request. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll go to the youngster up at the top, right? (laughing) That’s right, let’s include him. Knowing that I’ll be used up for the five minutes and squacking. That’s right, I know. Please go ahead, give us your name, you’ll find this. My name is Kelly Back and this is Jonathan. He just turned one and we live right on Edwin Drive where we will definitely be affected.

[2:07:39] We chose to build our dream house to raise our family there because we thought it was a safe area and now we are deeply concerned about the chemicals that are gonna be stored right there. We don’t believe that there has been enough to convince us that it will be safe for us and for our children. I do believe the response like my neighbors have been saying. You know, they’ll deal with it at the site planning process but we won’t have input and we won’t see those results. You know, I’ve had my dad died of cancer.

[2:08:13] I don’t want my kids to die of cancer and I take chemicals very, very seriously. I know I do live by on a golf course and I know they’re on the property and I feel safe where they currently are located. I would like them to consider building this maintenance facility that is needed. None of us are saying they shouldn’t build it. Please keep it at the current location. Please don’t bring it into our backyards. I mean, sure you could put up a noise barrier wall for noise. You can, you know, camouflage it with trees but if there’s an accident, accidents do happen. I work at a facility that has chemicals and I know accidents happen and that makes me very, very uncomfortable knowing it’s in our backyard.

[2:08:54] I please just, and security as well. That’s a huge thing for me and my family. We’re just right there. We’re so vulnerable. So please just consider this. We’d really like to defer and have more time as some of my neighbors have already requested. We feel, I mean, I’ve been putting my kids to bed and then we’ve been meeting late at night and on weekends, like trying to figure out, you know, reading all the documents, making sure we’re educated on this matter and trying to find the answer to our questions and we don’t have them.

[2:09:26] We don’t feel like we’re well informed and we would really like this process to make us comfortable before we move ahead because this is our homes, this is the future of our children and please just let us feel comfortable before this decision is made. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Christine McLaurin and my husband, John and I live at 215 Commissioners Road East.

[2:10:05] We are literally right in the thick of this. We bought our house, our dream house. A 1920s craftsman in 2007. We love our home. My husband has belonged to the golf course. My children learned to golf at the golf course. So we are literally right in the middle of this and it’s going to affect our property definitely on two sides, if not three. Before I go into all those details, I would say that the open space zoning designation that the golf course currently has is not reflected in what they are planning to do with this building.

[2:10:55] I would argue that it’s more of an industrial development. It’s footprint is ginormous. It’s 10 to 12 times the size of any of our homes. Two stories high. So those are the concerns. I would say that this is not within an open space zoning application. So we have many concerns, many of which have already been brought up, I will speak to the ones that concerns specifically our property.

[2:11:30] We have an access at the back from the service property that we would like or from the service lane that we would hope would be maintained. But it looks like they’re saying that that should be. And that’s one of the smaller concerns that we have. The service road currently is very narrow. There’s actually, we’ve walked it, we’ve measured it. We don’t see that it can actually support a two lane access and which speaks then to fire truck access.

[2:12:09] And I know that gets addressed at site plan. But if all these issues can’t even be resolved at site plan, all these red flags, shouldn’t we look at not approving this zoning amendment? Looking at what is proposed, again, yeah, it was brought up about the buffering. There is no buffering plantings on any of our property lines, whether it be this new access or more heavily used access or our back property line, which will be abutting the new parking lot.

[2:12:53] The servicing plan that was included in the planning documents indicates that servicing will be brought in either through the existing service driveway or along the easement on our East property line, which now are currently vegetated and they say that they can preserve the trees. And so that raises many, many questions. I think that what we can all sort of concur on is that we probably need a deferment.

[2:13:34] We would hope that you would agree with us that there’s so many questions. And yeah, we all love where we live. We’ve chosen to live there. We’ve been there since ‘27, ‘07. And I can’t imagine having this huge industrial type development in my backyard. Thank you. - Thank you. Look for the next speaker, please, ma’am.

[2:14:16] Well, we have a letter here from one resident. He’s a psychiatrist and he couldn’t cancel appointments. He did send a counselor, Hillier. So I don’t know if it’s appropriate if I read it for him or someone else. Councilor Hillier is online. He can refer to that letter when he wants to, when he needs it, can speak. Thank you. Yep, thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Sorry, could I hear who that was from? Yeah, that was from Muhammad al-Fakhani.

[2:14:50] Thank you. Thanks, Councilor. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Okay, thank you. Thanks for having me. My name is Danielle Duak. I’m a resident of 115 Edwin Drive. I live there with my husband and two young kids. It’s a single family home on the west of the proposed facility. I share the concerns voiced by my neighbors, but I wanted to focus on a very specific point because I think they’ve done a very good job of sharing kind of the concerns and some of the emotions we’re all feeling about the development.

[2:15:30] The point I wanna talk about is the recommendation of the planning staff that set out at 2.5. And that’s the section of the report that deals with the policy context. And the first sentence is that I wanna focus on is just proceeding to heading the London Plan. And that’s where the report indicates that it’s the staff’s opinion that the application is consistent with the Planning Act and the PPS because the Zoning By-law Amendment complies with the London Plan.

[2:16:05] And so then that takes me to the next point, which is the key consideration is whether this, in fact, does comply with the London Plan and the portion of the report that deals with that is on the next page. And that’s where we have kind of seven bullet points that are used to support the staff’s opinion that the above criteria have, essentially it says staff are of the opinion, the above criteria have been satisfied. And so the concern that I have is that the staff recommendation regarding the criteria of the London Plan being satisfied that appears in that seven bullet point is lacking in several critical areas.

[2:16:47] So it’s our position as residents of Highland Estate that it’s imperative for the pack to refer the application back to the planning staff to request the analysis that underlies the conclusion that the London Plan criteria have been satisfied. So why do I say that? The first is, it’s my position that it’s a superficial application of the evaluation criteria. And that’s not meant to be any disrespect to the staff who prepared the report. And it may be that there’s quite a bit of analysis that underlies those seven bullet points from the perspective of the decision makers and also the community who has to understand what went into this decision.

[2:17:32] It’s the contention that there’s consistency with the PPS and the London Plan and other legislation. It’s hard to get there because there’s no analysis to provide that detail. So for example, promoting the minimizing adverse impacts on the environment and other things we’ve raised today. Also the other bullet point is on the impact of adjacent properties. And I think you’ve heard about some of the ones that we’re concerned about. So again, the criteria mentions the potential impact and their management, but there’s no analysis to adequately evaluate that or leave the decision makers with enough information to understand how the impact, particularly on the residents of the nearby area, has been considered and what evidence was taken into account to come to that conclusion.

[2:18:25] Similarly, there’s no analysis of how the proposal fits within the existing and planned context. So again, we think to say it is, is too general. And the unique character of the adjacent neighborhood, including the 1920s craftsmen, executive homes, and then the sensitive natural areas that are there. There’s actually an abundance of pots and other wildlife in some of the brush that’s around the golf course. We say it demands a nuanced assessment, but we can’t tell that that’s been done.

[2:19:01] And there’s an absence of specific evidence on how the development respects and enhances this context. Municipal service availability. So it says that it’s available, but again, no detail about that and including things like water traffic, some other areas of concern. And then there’s a statement around guideline compliance. And again, there’s no analysis of the specific guidelines, how they apply, and we’d like to see a more comprehensive analysis provided to clarify that. I think at the beginning of the meeting when we heard from the applicant about that change being requested about the removal of the access between the existing single detached dwelling in the west property boundary.

[2:19:47] 30 seconds. That’s just a very small point, but presumably the staff, when they made that request for a change, there was a reason that details of that are not entirely clear, but if you put that together with the other comments I’ve made about the lack of analysis that’s set out here that undoubtedly some has been done. Putting all that together, we think the PEC should send the proposal back to staff for a more comprehensive and transparent analysis to make this decision that will have impacts on drainage, neighborhood context, environmental integrity.

[2:20:20] And without that, the PEC risk making a decision that doesn’t have all the information can lead to significant negative consequences for our community. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. There’s no one online. Okay, I don’t see anyone else looking to address the committee. So we have a motion to close the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, and I’ll call that by hand vote.

[2:20:53] Councillor Ploza, abstains. Closing the vote, the motion carries. Four with one recused. Okay. A couple of questions were raised in the PPM. I’d just like to address a couple of them. Regarding your property tax, that’s done through impact. That’s a provincial body that will assess the value of property with regards to tax levies, et cetera. All of us at City Council make a decision on our own regarding our recusal and a pecuniary interest.

[2:21:33] And the Councillor has identified her reasons for doing that, those are the two points I just wanted to address before we get into discussion here. So I will turn this over to committee for discussion. Councillor, I’ll go with Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, and I’m gonna seek a little guidance from the clerk on this as to whether there needs to be an amendment or whether I can just put this as an alternate motion entirely. So I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation, but I would like to add an H-101, and I wanna, before you even look for a seconder, ‘cause I know there’s like 200 H’s in the list right now.

[2:22:21] I wanna provide both other members of the committee, as well as the public, information on an H-101. Because several members of the public reference, there are things that don’t get resolved until site plan, things like photometric study for lighting, those kind of things. But an H-101 actually creates a public site plan, meeting process, so that you would actually have the opportunity to engage on some of those questions through a public site plan meeting. And so I think it’s really important, because as we heard, a number of questions that are related to, from the community, that are related to site plan.

[2:23:03] And that is the place where those things get worked out. But an H-101, and I wanna caveat this, because we, later in the agenda, we have to pass a list of updated holding provisions. The H-101 is what the new number would be, if we pass that list later in the meeting. If we don’t pass that list later in the meeting, or we make changes to it, I would have to come back at council and change it to an H-5, which is the current number. But I’ve checked with our staff in either way, I can ensure that public site plan process is there for you, by putting this holding provision in place.

[2:23:43] So I’m gonna move it as an H-101, because I’m going to presume that we are going to get rid of a bunch of obsolete ones later in the meeting. But if that doesn’t happen, then at council, I’ll amend it to the H-5. But I’d like to move the staff recommendation with the addition of an H-101, whether I need to amend it, or whether I can just move it as an alternate motion. I see the clerk nodding that I can just move it as an alternate motion. So I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that. Thank you for allowing me to explain the H-101 chair. Yeah, and because there’s no motion to the floor, then that’s your motion as you put it.

[2:24:20] And Councillor Hillier has already indicated he would second that motion. So do you want to speak to it, Deputy Mayor? And I know Councillor Hillier as well wants to address it. So I’ll go to you, Deputy Mayor. Yeah, so I just want to take a minute here to address a reality that I think is important for people to understand, which is under the Ontario Planning Act, once a completed application for rezoning is received, Council has 90 days to make a decision.

[2:24:53] It’s, there aren’t deferrals anymore under the Ontario Planning Act. We can, we can approve, we can refuse, but we have to make a decision to move it forward. So moving it forward or sending it back is not an option available to us under the new Planning Act regulations. Putting a holding provision into allow for a site plan approval is, because that opens up the next step in the development for you to have some input in. And I think some of the concerns and I will also say, I’m not looking to remove the other staff request, which the applicant indicated they don’t want, but I think that we still need to consider whether there’s two accesses or one there.

[2:25:41] And that will have an impact too. And that is part of the site plan as well. So I’m not prepared to remove that piece that the applicant doesn’t like, but I am prepared to move the public participation in the site plan, because I think that things like the photometric study on the lighting, the sound noise study could be considered in there as well. That’s referenced in the staff report as something that will be looked at by site plan. But I have to look at this through a planning lens as well. And I’ve heard a number of times, it’s about the size of the property, but when the property is under the same ownership and the use is going to be used for the adjacent property, there’s a couple of ways that property owners can do things.

[2:26:27] They can do a merge on title. They can use a property for an ancillary use to the adjacent property. In this case, that’s what they’re doing. And so staff do have to review with respect to the entirety of the property, not just the parcel where the change is coming on. But I think that by creating an opportunity for you to have some further discussions around access, even simple things, like I heard the resident who wanted to retain the rear yard access piece that they have, that’s part of the discussion that making a public site plan process will allow for you to have with the applicant on this as you move forward and work out some of these things.

[2:27:07] So that’s why I’m moving this now and hear what other members of the committee have to say. I’ll go to Councilor Hill here. Thank you. And I thank Council Lewis for putting that forward so that the neighborhood is protected at site. You’ll have to excuse me. I have papers all over the place because the neighborhood was very active, but I would like to address things that I saw and discuss at my site visit when I went. Now, if I’m looking at the map and approaching the driveway on 205 commissioners, when we reach the back of 101 Edwin, the driveway will then be turning into the golf course and approaching the lot on 1922 Heilman Heights corner lot that one piece that’s attached to the golf course.

[2:27:52] Now, I’m assuming the calculations for the size of the building are using the entire golf course and not the 205 because 205 is just an access to the property and not incorporated into the read of development. That’s my first. Okay, I’ll go to staff with that question. Through the chair, that’s correct. 205 commissioners Road East is gonna be retained as that single detached dwelling. There’s a special provision to allow the access to continue, should they wish to.

[2:28:25] The piece being rezoned is related to the lands at 1922 commissioners. Thank you. Councilor. Okay, thank you. Now, when that driveway is going to be turning from 101 and going into the plane, I spoke in with staff and they’re actually going to be removing the hill behind the existing property at 205 and lowering it. So the building is brought out of the scope of the people in Edwin drive. They’re hoping to bring it down a boat. Well, tactically, I’d say about a story ‘cause it is a very large building, but I would not call it industrial. It would be a maintenance shed.

[2:29:00] Now, the drainage, sorry, I’m just going, I know it’s the drainage will be affected, but it will be contained and going into the interior of the golf course toward the retention park. Now, the difference in traffic is, traffic will no longer be going from 101, 95, 89, 81, 77, 73, 69, 65, won’t be going past that every single day to go to the back. It will be turning and going to the other side of the property. Now, I do understand there will be some concerns about noise and I addressed that with them.

[2:29:34] And they said in the mornings, they opened the back of the buildings and in the evenings when they bring the vehicle, the other stuff back, they bring it to the rear. Now, this could be confirmed from site plan. Now, let me go down to my list a little farther. I’ve got everybody’s pages here, environmental concerns. That will be covered under site plan because chemicals, a few storage pesticides, that’s all covered already. The noise, yes, I can see this might be an issue, but I believe it’s employees showing up and parking and then grabbing a piece of equipment and leaving.

[2:30:07] I’m just not sure if they’re sitting there making noise. I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar with the property or in the school. I believe that’s everything we’ve got. I’m just waiting for the rest of my colleagues to do what you think, ‘cause this was given to me a few weeks ago, so. Okay, thank you, counselor. Look for other comments, sir. Question, counselor Hopkins. Thank you again for recognizing me. I’m not on this committee, but I really do appreciate the public being here and hearing your concerns and also very supportive of the amendment to have the public in both through the site plan process.

[2:30:51] I think it’s loud and clear. We’ve heard lighting and noise being the two major concerns, and that is looked at site plan, but the public will be able to have input. I think that is very important to have the public’s input because this is a maintenance building, so lighting and noise will be different in a building as opposed to, say, a residential property. So really important to still have the public input. I do have a question, Mr. Chair, about the site and why this site was chosen.

[2:31:27] I’m not sure if the applicant can answer that or not, but why was this location picked as opposed to creating the maintenance building at the location? Yep, I’ll go to the applicant in that question. Yes, so moving it from where it currently is to where we are proposing it was more so for a golf course operations perspective. So currently, yes, people like the work carts and everything is driving more centrally located on the property, but in order to maintain economic viability for the property and future expansion of golf course operations such as practice facility, different expansions to the actual course itself.

[2:32:09] The current proposed location is a result of protecting the future expansion of the actual golf course itself. Councilor, good. Look for other comments, Councilor Prabble. Thank you, questions to the Chair, to the staff. If this is passed in a couple of weeks with the by the Council of as the addition of H-101, which is currently H-5, what will be the H-101 will include the input, the feedback from the residents, but what could be actually potentially changed from your proposal and staff’s recommendation?

[2:32:47] They’re gonna be potential chance to change anything or they will stand either way. Well, staff. Through the Chair, through the site plan approval process with it being public, we’ll look for comments related to the landscaping, lighting, and what we can implement from that. Comments through site plan related to the use itself. Once it’s kind of the zoning is there, we’re using the underlying zoning. If there’s requests for increased landscaping or taller fence height that meets the fencing by-law, that’s something that we can consider through that process.

[2:33:24] We do try and take all the public comments through that process into consideration to kind of see where we can improve, to bring it more into what the neighbourhood would like to see happen. Councillor? - Thank you, not a full up right now. No, thanks. Other comments or questions? I’ll just ask the Deputy Mayor to take the Chair, please. I will take the Chair and recognise Councillor Lehman. Thank you, so I’ve listened to what you’ve had to say and I’m concerned and disappointed, quite frankly, that the golf course didn’t consult with the folks here today.

[2:34:09] This Island golf course has been around a long time, important part of the city, but it is a very urban golf course that’s surrounded by housing and I would expect by now that they would consider their neighbours when making significant decisions like this one. They currently have a maintenance shed and probably the only spot in the golf course that wouldn’t impact neighbours. I’m not too sure why the need is for it to be moved down to here or in additional building to be moved down here.

[2:34:47] Neither here nor there. That’s up to them and their requirements. However, I wish they had consulted with folks here tonight and today, which I feel they haven’t. I know we have many developments come before us where massive housing is up for consideration and there has been considerable consulting done with those neighbours that surround it and for some reason, this wasn’t done in my opinion for what I’ve seen or heard in this particular situation.

[2:35:26] I’m glad that the Deputy Mayor has put that holding provision in to get, you know, at some point to get feedback into how this can be done in a way that can mitigate some of the concerns that were presented tonight and I will just leave it at my comments at that. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I will return the chair to you. I don’t have any other Councillors on the speakers list at the moment. Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for one more time for any comments or questions. I’ll call the question.

[2:36:03] Councillor Palazzo abstains. Louis Vojchess. Boating the vote, the motion carries. Three yes, one no, one refused. Okay, moving on to three. Sorry, Mr. Chair, point of personal privilege. Yes. Just, if you could just tell residents since I’m trying to say the process of how this goes to council and next steps, just since they’re here.

[2:36:39] Committee makes a decision, it goes to council Oh, sure. Yeah, this decision is in final. This is a pack recommendation that we’ll go to council and the next council meeting at which point all of council will vote on this item. Thank you. Okay, we’re moving on to three point over here. Three point 10 and this is regarding 21 to 41 mentally road and 20 Norlin Avenue. We have motion moved and seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

[2:37:17] So I will look for a hand vote to open up the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any questions of technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none, I’ll ask the applicant if they’d like to address a committee. Please ma’am, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of Planning Committee. My name is Laura Jamison. I am an intermediate planner with Stalinga Priammo here on behalf of our client, Royal Premier Holmes.

[2:37:52] Firstly, I would like to take a moment to thank staff for their work on this file and these lands to date. There’s been a lot of back and forth on them and we appreciate their time. We’ve had the opportunity to review the staff report today and respectfully disagree with the recommendation for refusal. It is our professional opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the intensification policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024. Through this application, our client is ultimately requesting recognition of provisions which were supported by staff through the minor variance process and approved by the Committee of Adjustment earlier this year.

[2:38:36] There were no concerns regarding over-intensification or compatibility with adjacent lands at that time. Additionally, the development has site plan approval in principle for 92 units, showing that the density can be appropriately accommodated on the subject lands. The only difference between the application before you today and the previous approvals is the removal of the bonus zone which required four affordable units. The value of these affordable units was not known at the time of the original zoning bylaw application or the minor variance application.

[2:39:14] The provision of these units are cost prohibitive and the feasibility of the entire 92 unit townhouse development is in jeopardy. In lieu of these affordable units, however, our client is proposing alternative contributions to the community. Firstly, through discussions with the word counselor and area schools, our client intends to donate to these schools to fund playground enhancements as was a recently identified need through the city’s neighborhood decision-making initiatives. Additionally, our client has agreed to fund infrastructure improvements to urban routes London, a nonprofit community garden which provides fresh produce to members of the community who may not have regular access to healthy foods.

[2:40:01] The proponent has offered to upsize an existing water line and provide a connection to our client’s pumping station to allow for a connection to the municipal system. Our client has also agreed to make a cash donation to urban routes to further support their affordability efforts. We understand that an alternative motion is being requested by Councillor McAllister to support the zoning bylaw amendment as per the application submitted on behalf of our client. And we also requested this committee endorses the alternative motion.

[2:40:36] Thank you so much for your time. I’m available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. I’ll look for the members of the public. I would like to address this committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name’s Anna Padilla. I’m the Executive Director of Urban Roots London. And just to clarify, we are an urban farm, not an urban garden site. To start off, I would like to make clear that I am speaking on behalf of Urban Roots London organization and not the Norlin Meadowlily neighborhood. Since sending in our letter of concerns, the committee, the developer has been in touch with us concerning the water line construction and the donation to urban routes.

[2:41:15] We appreciate the developer’s efforts with working with us on the donation that would benefit the urban routes community, as well as reassuring us that we will still have access to water during the construction process. And that the water line construction should only take a few hours in one day. This has been reassuring for our farming operations. In addition, we have been reassured that the property taxes will not be affected during this current tax cycle by the sidewalk construction, which we do welcome in the neighborhood. We have been wanting to build a proper bathroom on site for the wellbeing of our staff and volunteers. And the developer has agreed to connect a line from their private sewer line to our property and offered funds for the construction project.

[2:41:53] We welcome these donations from the developer and look forward to continuing to work with the developer during the constructions of both our projects. With that said, as an organization committed to ensuring that those most at risk have access to affordable produce to increase food security in our city, we acknowledge that food security and our housing crisis are interconnected. We would like to see the city establish equitable guidelines for affordable units and new builds and to create proper guidelines for what developers would like to invest in the community. Urban routes owns the house we have in our property and we offer a deeply affordable rent for the couple that resides in the home, even at a loss for us as an organization.

[2:42:30] We do this because we understand how unaffordable it is in our city to find decent housing and we truly believe in the ability of community care. I hope this can be an example for the developers, counselors and city staff in this room. Affordable decent housing and access to affordable nutritious food is a human right and we all to offer these basic needs to those in our communities most at risk. I appreciate the time to speak today and thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I don’t see anyone else in the gallery. I’ll ask the clerk to something going on.

[2:43:03] There’s no one online, so we have motion moved to close the PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. I’ll ask for a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Worship, Councilor McAllister provided an alternate recommendation. As he’s not a member of this committee, I’m happy to move it in support of the word Council. I believe Councilor Hill here is willing to second it. And I’ll save any comments, I’ll defer to the word Councilor.

[2:43:40] Okay, so we’ve got a motion moved and seconded. Moved by Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councilor Hill here. And I’ll go to Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the committee’s indulgence. Letting me speak, I’m a visitor to this committee. And to what was just said by urban roots, I really do think that this is an example to be followed in terms of the work that’s being done today. Very appreciative of the developer, Royal Premier Homes, working with me and community stakeholders to really find some meaningful community improvements in conversation with both Ealing Public School and Trafalgar Public School.

[2:44:24] Both schools, Trafalgar actually just turned 100 years, Ealing’s 120 years. Schools have been around for a very long time, but are in desperate need of some improvements. They’ve really wanted playgrounds for quite a while now. I’ve gone to their home and schools and spoke with them and the parents are very appreciative of this as well. I think it’s gonna make a lot of impact in the community for the kids, the families and even for urban roots, those improvements will be greatly appreciated, I’m sure as well as what was stated by urban roots.

[2:45:02] They do so much good in our community. I know this will continue to help their efforts to address food security in London. And so I really wanna thank everyone who’s been involved in this process. Appreciate being able to put forward this alternate motion. I know in an ideal world, we want affordable housing, absolutely. I think what’s been proposed going from 80 to 92 is still very reasonable. I still think it helps us in terms of our housing goals. I think moving forward, we can always look at what to do in lieu of affordable housing.

[2:45:40] We obviously want to build more of it, but I think for what has been proposed by the developer, this is fair. This helps the community and this still moves us forward in terms of getting housing built in the city of London. So I hope the committee will support this. A lot of work went into it and very thankful for everyone who was involved. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you wondering if Councillor McAllister would be aware of what the value is, the new playgrounds at both schools.

[2:46:18] Playgrounds vary differently of just a swing set versus a comprehensive playground. Councillor. Off the top of my head, I don’t know. I do have the schools that provide the invoices. I know Councillor Kadde, you might be able to speak to that more, I think being on the school board. But that’s something I can provide to council if they would like to see the plans that were provided. ‘Cause the schools have already approved those and have the invoicing available if council would like that. Council I can go to. Councillor Kadde is in the kid right now. Thank you, Chair, and through you. From my previous experience on the school board, they started $75,000 and they run up to about $90,000.

[2:46:55] So it’s in that range. Thank you. That’s a basic float playground, Councillor. Thank you, realizing different playgrounds, people pick different things. So was wondering on the range, I know I currently have one on the go on my ward. So maybe I’m just crispy today. I appreciate where the Councillor is coming to you, trying to do good community work. I appreciate that Royal Premier Homes is trying to be a good neighbor. I have an issue with it being tied to this application. I feel like it’s a little bit of horse trading here on the floor.

[2:47:29] If they want to be a good neighbor, Urban Roots does great work. They’re a phenomenal organization and could always use a donation at any time. And absolutely water and washing facilities would be of great value there. Also worried that we see schools in need of playgrounds, that’s back filling provincial obligations to school boards again. Absolutely, I followed the neighborhood decision-making initiatives. I would say it’s the city run program for ideas, but it’s not the city’s initiatives for just for clarification from a speaker earlier.

[2:48:06] I had a school on my ward and a developer stepped up, not in conjunction with a development, but just the head tie of the school and wanted to help out. And did that, I know it’s happened previously in Deputy Mayor Lewis’s ward. And I don’t like that we’re trying to pick affordable units and housing for residents over perceived food security. Both are important. I appreciate, as I said, Royal Premier Homes looking to do good work in their neighborhood that they’re moving into.

[2:48:42] But those are my concerns. We’re back filling provincial obligations and giving them housing to do it. Thank you, Ward, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so I am very supportive of this. And I think that it speaks to the fact that even in the London Plan, for a long time, there was a focus exclusively on affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing. There are a number of other items that can be considered for community benefit within the London Plan.

[2:49:17] And I think that these provisions meet that that community benefit threshold. I certainly understand the desire people have to see affordable housing. However, I think we need to really, and I’ve had this conversation with staff many times, there’s a reason the Bonusing Tool was removed. And in part, and well, I still wish we had a Bonusing Tool, in part, it was because the workability of requiring affordable housing in a private sector build that requires people to then manage and work with the municipality for the next 25, 30, we’ve even seen 50-year requirements.

[2:50:02] Becomes really unwieldy. And the result is it doesn’t get built. There are still zoning applications that were approved with conditions for affordable housing before I was on council six years ago that are vacant lots. So we say we got affordable housing in the deal, but we actually got nothing because we put so many conditions in place, floor plate sizes, 50-year affordable housing agreements, all of these things that the developer walked away and said this is not economically viable.

[2:50:41] And if we want to keep things affordable, the best thing that we can do is continue to facilitate some inventory being added to our city because I think we all are aware and we all agree that there’s just no units available right now is part of the problem. When we’re under a 2% vacancy rate, I think we all realize that the units that are available, are units that are either unattainable on the cost side or undesirable on the quality of the unit side. And the units that people actually want, there’s just none of, so we gotta get building them.

[2:51:19] And to move forward a town host development in this area of the city where already the land costs are a little bit lower. So it’s already gonna result in a little bit more affordable product than it may in some other areas of the city. And to get those community benefits, and I agree with Councilor Palosa, I despise having to backfill for the province, but I also recognize that these home and schools have been working their butts off in some lower income neighborhoods in the city where no matter how many cookie doughs and frozen pizzas and whatever other fundraisers you have, getting that $95,000 mark for a new playground for your kids to enjoy at the school is just, your kid’s gonna start in grade one and by grade eight, you’re still not gonna have the money raised for the playground.

[2:52:12] And I do appreciate that there have been some community donations in other words, including my own that have not been tied specifically to applications. But I don’t think that we should ignore the fact that these are still a community benefit that can be applied to this application. Moving forward, and I know it’s an ongoing discussion, but I really do think we have to take a serious look at, in the roadmap to 3000 and how we’re attaining affordable units, what is the actual value of an affordable unit to the city? And when people don’t wanna take on the management responsibilities and the insurance responsibilities for the next 25, 30, 35 years, what is an adequate and acceptable level of moving forward with a different community benefit?

[2:52:58] What is that value? We saw towers at the forks of the Thames that had a donation for in well attached, not required, but nonetheless included. And so I think we have to be flexible right now without any guidelines, we’re gonna have to use our best judgment on that. So that’s why I’m supportive of moving forward with this application and seeing something happen on this lot rather than nothing happen on this lot. Councilor Hoppins? Sorry, point of order.

[2:53:31] Go ahead. Or privilege, take it as you will. Just the motion’s not on an e-scribe. There’s no e-scribe. It’s not on the board. Could either be circulated in email or here ‘cause I gotta vote on it and I gotta see it. Okay, I’ll also clerk to distribute my email and post it so the public can see as well. Thanks, Councilor, Councilor Hoppins. Thank you, Mr. Chair for recognizing me again too and really interested in the conversation here. So we know we can put in 80 units here and it’s unfortunate when I hear a developer say it’s not affordable to put affordable units in.

[2:54:12] That is a concern for me, but as we move forward with this application, I have a question through you, Mr. Chair, about the letter that we received from the Chippewa, the Thames, and the justification report. And we’re looking at a water line that’s going to be introduced here and would like to have a little bit more information on how that water line will work with the development and does it increase the overflows and how it works with the Thames?

[2:54:49] I just, I’m not exactly sure with all these other things that are being put into this application. How does it work with the overflows and the treatment plants and the pumping stations? I just want to have a better understanding exactly. Is there a concern out there with the indigenous community? I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair.

[2:55:23] So the site at 2141 did have a private pump station approved so that would discharge into the municipal sanitary system and we do have capacity for that. So we have not noted any concerns from the indigenous community would not necessarily note any impact on overflows necessarily, but it will take this opportunity to note that we do not allow communal private pump stations or private servicing.

[2:55:54] So that is when you would have more than one property owner going into a private pump station because it then requires a licensed operator to run it under provincial legislation. And if any of the owners default on it or the operator defaults on it, then it then becomes a city liability that we have not had any role in designing or operating or maintaining. So it is a significant risk to the city and as such, we do not allow communal private servicing.

[2:56:29] Councilor. And so with this proposal, there is a water line being recommended. Just want to make sure until we all understand the consequences. Go to staff. Thank you. So the potable water line, they do have water service. That’s individual to the line who would be connected to the municipal water main. That’s not a problem. The issue here is the provision of sanitary service to urban roads and although I appreciate the spirit of the offer and I agree they are a great organization and we have had conversations with them before around servicing, communal private pump stations such as this for the sanitary flows is, I would highly recommend against that.

[2:57:13] Councilor. Good to know. Thank you. A look for other comments or questions. Councilor Cuddy. Thank you chair and through you. I just want to thank my colleague, Councilor McAllister for coming up with a creative solution and for Deputy Mayor Lewis for moving the motion forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Pull up through you potentially to staff and/or Councilor McAllister. He did mention he could circulate the playground information prior to council.

[2:57:49] We’d be grateful to receive that. Within the staff report on page 49497, it says neither the town’s valley justice school board or the London district Catholic school board provide comments confirming the ability to accept the funds, looking to see if we do put this in that the school board is able on the school willing to take it. I’m not too sure where I go with that. I’ll start with staff. Through the chair, can you refer the question to the applicant please?

[2:58:24] Yeah, I’ll go to the applicant. Councilor, could you repeat your question please? Thank you. On page 497 at the time of the report that staff did have a confirmation from the town’s valley school board or the Catholic one that they would be taking the donation of funds, looking for confirmation that if council directs that it’s part of the agreement or expectation that the school board will take them and build the school like the playground. Yeah, I’ll go to the applicant. Through you chair, yes, I believe that is the intent. I don’t have much information on that myself.

[2:59:03] Perhaps the proponent would be able to speak to that further if possible. If you want, yeah, just for the question from the councilor. Can I speak up? I do have something to add as well. I’ll come to you, councilor, after here. Yeah, it’s far ahead. No different from real premier homes. Basically, we agreed with both schools. They prevented their budget and we will make that part of our site plan approval or development agreement approval.

[2:59:40] So we’ll give them the donation check when we get the part of the conditions or approval of all our sites. That’s why we agreed based on that one. Councilor Palosa. Okay, we’ll go to Councilor McAllister. Thank you. And sorry, I did have both principles indicate that they would have a letter. Unfortunately, they didn’t have their letter in in time for it to be added to the agenda. But just to provide some further information, Ealing Public School does have a home in school.

[3:00:12] And so the donation would be going through the home in school to be able to facilitate the playground construction. They have already passed the plans in terms of the playground they would like that was presented to the developer. Trafalgar will be a bit more involved because they don’t currently have a functioning home in school. So that donation does have to go through Thames Valley, but there is a way as the principal indicated that it can come back directly to the school for that purpose once the principal has indicated that’s what the donation is specifically for.

[3:00:47] Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I would appreciate whatever letters publicly are available for the council agenda to attach it to this. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers. Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Louis Vochas. Kerry Vochas. Palosa votes now. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

[3:01:28] Okay, moving on 3.1. This is regarding 40/40 Colonel Talbot Road. We have a motion to open the public participation meeting by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cutty. I’ll look for a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of the technical nature for staff? Committee? Seeing none, I’ll look for the applicant. The applicant would like to address the committee. Sure, thank you. My name is Beau Wandsboro. I’m manager of planning and development at Sifton Properties Limited.

[3:02:03] Thank you for your time to speak to 440 Colonel Talbot. We support the staff report in the sense that it does prove our application from the most part, but we are asking that the committee recommend approval of our request for 100 units per hectare. Currently, the staff report does say that the, in the earlier part of the staff report does say that our application does fit all the criteria, the seven criteria list in the London plan. Further in the staff report though, does say that the criteria six and seven were not met when I’ll read the criteria for you, which would be potential impacts on adjacent and nearby properties in the area and the degree to which such impacts could be managed and mitigated.

[3:02:50] And the number seven criteria is the degree to which the proposal fits in with the existing and plan context. We feel, so part of our application was an increase in height and staff have recommended approval of that. And it is our opinion that the height probably impacts the most neighboring properties the most, and given that they’re okay with this, I think the slight increase in units per hectare is also appropriate. The surrounding uses currently are just future residential and essentially unused, it’s an unbuilt up area.

[3:03:27] So the chances for impact on residential areas or our neighboring uses is very low while the positive impacts of increasing units per hectare were given the housing crisis and the need for increasing housing supply is very positive. So we feel that this would be very appropriate to recommend. Also, the staff report does speak more detailed about the reasons, speak about six and seven, but when we get into the details about that, it is less about the neighbors and seems to be more of a matters of site plan control.

[3:04:03] For example, it talks about providing driveways, adequate parking in appropriate locations, landscape, open-scapes, and appropriately sized, open-door residential amenity area. And I would suggest that these are other zoning provisions that we would be talking about or matters of site plan, which we can all be addressed. And so also the Southwest area plan, it’s a secondary plan in areas right along Colonel Talbot Road just to the north, actually already allows for 100 units per hectare and a nine-story maximum for height.

[3:04:42] So we feel that it is consistent with the area plan. We feel it’s consistent with the provincial policy, the focus for that. And we do agree with the beginning statement of the staff report that it does fit all the criteria. And we respectfully ask that the committee recommend the 100 units per hectare as part of this approval. And I’d like to thank you for your time. And if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. I’ll look for comments from the public. I want to wish to address the committee. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online.

[3:05:19] I don’t see anyone in the gallery. So we motion move to close a PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi, I’ll call and vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Councillor Plaza. Thank you, I’ll move it. The staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. We have motion moved and seconded. I’ll look for a discussion.

[3:05:52] Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me again. This is an application in ward nine. And I’m hoping the committee will support the recommendation. I know there have been concerns about the access going into this development as it relates to the condominium on the west side access. That is going to be addressed through the site plan. There will be that opportunity. So I’m hoping the committee will support the recommendation. Thank you, I’m gonna look for other speakers.

[3:06:32] Okay, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Yes. Deputy votes yes. Lewis votes yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.12. This is regarding 415 Knoxford Street West. I’m going to look to staff for a brief report on this. Through the chair, thank you.

[3:07:04] And the purpose of the following application is to amend the existing specific policy into reason the subject lands permit to 22-story mixed use apartment buildings containing a total of 704 residential units. Staff are recommending refusal as the amendment does not satisfy the criteria for adoption of specific area policies does not facilitate an appropriate form of residential intensification within the neighborhood’s place type is not appropriate within the existing and planned neighborhood context. And the request amendment is considered premature. And our main concerns are one, the intensity.

[3:07:41] So when the neighborhood’s place type is planned to accommodate heights from one to eight stories based on street classification and locational criteria. The intent is to ensure the intensity is appropriate within the neighborhood context and the properties fronting onto neighborhood streets allow for a broader range of uses in more intense forms than those fronting onto minor streets. This approach also balances neighborhood stability and predictability with the goal of creating complete neighborhoods. Given the context and uniqueness of the subject lands, a maximum height of 12 stories was permitted through a specific policy approved in 2021.

[3:08:17] Staff are the opinion that in additional 10 stories does not facilitate an appropriate transition in height on a neighborhood street, nor adequately mitigate potential impacts as the site immediately to the north is zoned for a maximum of four stories. Also, the greatest intensity improved for the adjacent plan of subdivision is a maximum of 18 stories and only applies to the lands directly fronting onto Oxford Street West with heights transitioning further down into the subdivision on lower order streets. The second concern was the integrity of the place of policies.

[3:08:48] As proposed, 22 stories is not only 19 stories greater than the three stories permitted in the neighborhood’s place type on a neighborhood street, but as 10 stories greater than the 12 stories permitted by the existing specific policy. The intensity also exceeds the existing maximum height of 16 stories for the rapid transit corridor place type and approaches the newly council approved maximum height of 25 stories. As such, staff are concerned that the requested amendment adversely impacts the integrity of both place types. The third concern was the access to Oxford Street West.

[3:09:23] So transportation impact assessment was submitted and reviewed by transportation engineering who reiterated previously identified concerns with the vehicular access onto Oxford Street West. Specifically, this access should be removed and all vehicular access should be directed through the future plan of subdivision. Meaning the goal of the London plan to limit future driveways onto major streets, mitigating potential adverse impacts to transportation, pedestrian safety and access management. The fourth concern was the servicing. So preliminary servicing report was submitted and reviewed by engineering who reiterated previously identified concerns regarding servicing capacity in the premature early of the proposed application.

[3:10:04] Specifically, the subject lands are dependent on servicing from the adjacent plan of subdivision. The subject lands are also contemplated for 480 units as per the latest submission from the subdivision, whereas this application proposes 704 units. As such, the proposed density exceeds the contemplated capacity and should be coordinated with the abutting subdivision. And the fifth concern was the mud creek channel realignment. So the subject lands are almost entirely within the UTRCA regulated area in the regulatory floodline. As a segment, a mud creek runs along the entire frontage of the subject lands.

[3:10:40] The application is premature as phase three of the mud creek channel and stormwater works have yet to be completed. And key supporting technical information has yet to be accepted by the Conservation Authority. Specifically, a 60 meter wide corridor width from Oxford Street West will be required as part of the mud creek channel conveyance the city of London. Therefore, any design concepts for this site prior to finalizing the floodplain may be subject to revisions based on the outcome of the ultimate floodplain limit, which will determine the development area. So in conclusion, staff or the opinion that their requested amendment is not in the public interest and does not represent good planning.

[3:11:17] Staff continue to agree with the policy direction from 2021 and are the opinion that alternative design development and conformity with this policy could be supported. An appropriate transitional height of 12 stories would maintain the integrity of both the neighborhoods and rapid transit corridor place types while encouraging a complete community design. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for going to PPM now. We have a motion moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy to move into PPM. I’ll hand vote please.

[3:11:53] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any questions of technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none, I’ll ask the applicant if you’d like to address the committee. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you and through you, Chair. Good afternoon committee members, staff and members of the public. My name is Taylor Whitney. I’m an intermediate planner with the Lincoln-Pramma Limited. The planning consultant representing brand developments, the landowner of 415 Oxford Street West, who is also here with me today. And I’m also joined by Matt Campbell, partner of the Lincoln-Pramma Limited.

[3:12:29] We have had the opportunity to review the report prepared by staff and we respectfully disagree with the recommendation for refusal. And I would like to take this time to explain the merits of this application. I have also submitted a letter to this effect for the committee’s review prior to this meeting, which is included as part of the add of the agenda. A strong theme of the London plan is to encourage appropriate intensification and redevelopment specifically along high order transit routes such as Oxford Street West. The subject lands are located along a rapid transit boulevard with a future planned transit station within 100 meters of the lands.

[3:13:04] While these lands are within the neighborhood’s place type, they have an active existing connection to Oxford Street West and function as rapid transit corridor lands. The site specific policy that applies to the lands was also consistent with the building heights and intensities of the rapid transit corridor at the time that it was accepted. This area of the city is planned for significant intensification with increased building heights. Council has approved heights of up to 25 stories to the west and south through the transit station area zones, which are directly adjacent to these lands and building heights of up to 18 stories to the north and east through site specific approvals.

[3:13:43] These lands are a keyhole in an area already approved for heights similar or more significant than the proposed 22 stories. And they represent a significant opportunity for info with over 700 proposed dwelling units. We recognize and appreciate that several key issues have been identified relating to this application, particularly relating to access and servicing. However, these issues are largely technical in nature and can be addressed through the site plan approval process and through the recommended holding provisions. We agree with the need for holding provisions on these lands to ensure these issues are addressed prior to development.

[3:14:18] And as part of the letter we’ve submitted, we also provide a draft bylaws which include holding provisions relating to access, servicing and the mud creek channel works. Staff have suggested that this application is premature. However, they also acknowledge the requirement for coordinating with the adjacent subdivision to establish servicing connections and agreements. For this reason, it is our opinion that now is the appropriate time to bring this application forward because we are here seeking permissions for increased height and densities and would be impractical to proceed with detailed servicing design prior to a decision on this application.

[3:14:55] We have also been in contact with the adjacent subdivision owner who is aware of the density that we’re proposing. These lands represent a significant opportunity to intensify and provide significant housing opportunities along a rapid transit boulevard in an area plan for a wide range of commercial and high density residential uses. And because of this, we respectfully request that this committee recommend to approval of this application. Thank you for your time and consideration and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online.

[3:15:40] Councillor, we’ll get to you once we’re finished the public participation meeting. I don’t see anyone in the chambers and where it comes from for me, there’s no one online. So we will look to close the PPM move by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll go to committee members first or I’ll put it on the floor for discussion or motions. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[3:16:14] I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. I’ll look for a seconder. Councillor Cuddy has seconded. I’ll look for comments or I can go to Councillor Tresseau. Councillor Tresseau, please go ahead. Yes, I just wanted to ask the technical question. Could you just give us a little bit more information about the way the servicing would come into this subdivision? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question.

[3:16:53] Earlier this year, the subdivision at 323 Oxford Street was approved for the Zoning and Official Plan Amendment. We’re still working through the draft approval process right now with the applicant opening them draft approved in the near future. The servicing for this property, both sanitary and water, were envisioned to be internal to the subdivision. So serviced through one of these neighborhood streets rather than directly through Oxford Street. Hopefully that addresses the Councillor’s question. Councillor.

[3:17:26] Through the chair, when you say through one of these internal streets, do you mean Beaver Brook in Westfield? Go to staff. Through the chair, no, I’m referring to one of the streets that will be a new street as part of the draft plan. So there’s adjacent to this property on the north. There is a neighborhood street being considered. That neighborhood street will then connect to Westfield and Beaver Brook, but it’s not connecting to Beaver Brook directly.

[3:18:02] It’s through the neighborhood connectivity of this subdivision. So there’s neighborhoods street that it’ll be connecting to. Councillor. Finally, my last question to the chair is, is it fair to say that this is going to increase the intensity of the through traffic, both on Beaver Brook and Westfield, based on the information that you have through your traffic studies? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, because there’s no vehicular access supported off Oxford, traffic would be routed through the new streets and through those existing streets.

[3:18:47] So yes. Councillor. Thank you. I have no further questions. Okay. I’ll look for committee or visiting Councillors comments. I’ll ask the deputy, I’ll go to the deputy mayor. Thank you chair. And I move this, the staff are recommending refusal. I generally am supportive of infill and densification, particularly along urban corridors. But I, in this case, I agree with staff that this application is quite premature.

[3:19:26] We have several considerations here that for me don’t make this possible to support right now. The OS zone that really is there along Oxford so that when the development ultimately happens, the entry point is really not going to be on Oxford. The mud creek piece that was alluded to and as West London residents know, as you would know, Mr. Chair, ‘cause I know you have to go that way to go home. We’ve had challenges with our own infrastructure project in the mud creek area and we still have lane closures there.

[3:20:05] We, I know we all want that to be done as quickly as possible, but unforeseen circumstances sometimes arise. And I think that that shows that in this area, there’s some more work to do before we look at intensification on this particular piece of property. There’s some infill happening around and I don’t think that this is a never. I think this is a too soon to be looking at doing this, especially with a temporary servicing option that is going to be in an area where we’re already challenged, I will say, with the current circumstances around mud creek.

[3:20:46] So I think that this is one that needs to be paused and perhaps resubmitted at a later date with some more detailed work done once there’s a better concept of how the servicing on the north side of the site with the adjacent development would play out. So that’s why I’m supporting the refusal on this one right now. I’m just not convinced that the servicing options and the OS zone and the mud creek area that we’re ready to be moving forward with this kind of zoning.

[3:21:20] Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Pluzza. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to staff, they had mentioned that the future servicing and roadways coming in as the preferred road is not off Oxford. Do we know what the timeline is for the adjacent development and the build out of that subject site? Go to staff. Through the chair, once we have draft approval, I, in fact, recall correctly the conversation I think we had this spring or summer, the applicant mentioned this development could develop over 15 or 20 years.

[3:21:54] It’s going to be a multiple phase development for this subdivision. I also recall them wanting to really focus on their phase one, which was most easily, but also fronted on Oxford Street. So that would not provide the servicing necessary for this development within the potentially next five years, but it is a large development plan over the next 15 to 20 years. Councillor. Thank you, and through you to staff, do we know when the next phase of the Mud Creek reports would come back to us?

[3:22:30] I know anything involving upper towns is, we’re at their disposal of when things come back, but just for timing of, I’m hearing 15 to 20 years, I know bus rapid transit is being built out in stages. And then just if staff knows about the Mud Creek component. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the city’s just wrapping up the channel works from the phase two works, which will be done by 2026. Then it’s a private development led channel at that time. So they could be in the ground as early as 2027, 2028 with channel works.

[3:23:05] So that’s the earliest we could see something out here. Councillor, look for other comments, questions. I’ll ask the deputy mayor to take the chair, please. I will ask Councillor Lehman to hold his comments for just one moment, ‘cause I closed my timer. Yeah, so I’d like to comment on this. We, you know, this committee and council have, we’ve approved a lot of density in this area, quite frankly. Transformational on the north end of this proposed project and just stones throw away up at Oxford and Wonderland, pretty high density projects as well.

[3:23:51] Mud Creek is a fairly significant engineering project feed accomplishment that the city is undertaking as all those as deputy mayor alluded to in the west are aware of as we’ve driven through that project for the last little while. It’s very complex and one that I think that we should be very cautious on what we do in that area until we know exactly what’s going on.

[3:24:26] So at this time, you know, it was mentioned by the applicant actually, appropriate intensity. Well, in my opinion, at this time, it would not be appropriate to go from 12 stories to 22 stories until we know more of the unknown unknowns. We need to know Mud Creek, we need to know traffic flows and the considerations with transit, et cetera, before I would feel comfortable going to the extra height at this location. So I will support the staff recommendation and the motion at hand.

[3:25:07] And I will return the chair to you, Councillor Layman. Thank you. I’ll look for other speakers. We have a motion moved in second. I’ll call it all about. Close the votes, yes. Petty votes, yes. Louis votes, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, moving on to 313.

[3:25:43] This is regarding a holding provision symbol review. And before we get into the public participation part, I’d like to go to staff for a brief presentation on this. Thank you, Chair, and through you. So in April of this year, 2024, City of London staff began a review of holding provisions within the zoning by-law number Z1 as a targeted action to increase London’s housing supply. The review, excuse me, the review was initiated through the customer service and process improvement group, which included City of London staff and representatives from the development industry who were given the purpose of reviewing how holding provisions have been applied and of reviewing opportunities to streamline the holding provision process.

[3:26:29] Results of the review found that the use of holding provisions could be minimized. So when another planning act mechanism cannot cover the intent of a provision or where extenuating circumstances are involved. Currently, there are 235 holding provisions that have been enacted through the zoning by-law. Based on the review findings, holding provisions are proposed to either be retained or removed from use in future development applications. 13 holding provisions are proposed to be the only provisions available for use moving forward. Of these 13, seven are proposed to undergo minor adjustments to their policy language. Their purposes are to remain the same.

[3:27:03] The remaining 222 holding provisions are proposed to no longer be used in future applications. Of these 222, 98 are proposed to remain on properties until conditions are satisfied. 124 of these 222 holding provisions are proposed to be removed from existing properties at this time. For a visual, please refer to page 869 of the revised agenda. There’ll be a map there, approximately showing 2,076 properties, currently having holding provisions applied, shown in dark gray. Of these, 494 properties will have holding provisions removed, shown in green, by limiting holding provision used to 13 provisions.

[3:27:43] The intention is to improve efficiency and consistency in the development process. To support this, holding provisions being retained for use are to be renumbered from H1 to H13, while holding provisions being removed from use, but retained on properties, are to be renumbered H100 to H197. With less applications necessitating holding provision use, building permit stages can be reached faster, as holding provision removal would not be necessary. To conclude, these changes are expected to promote more streamlined development, supporting Council’s housing pledge, while maintaining protection of the public interest.

[3:28:17] Thank you. Thank you. Well, we’ll now go into the public participation part. Again, we’ve motioned by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and seconded by Councillor Cuddy, to open the PPM, I’ll look for a hand vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to the public now. I see Mike Wallace is first at the mic. Mr. Wallace, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Councillors, thank you, members of the committee. I am Mike Wallace, I’m here with LDI, and it’s really a bit of a thank you and why it’s important.

[3:28:56] And the thank you starts with the staff team that were on the committee that invited industry to come and not just talk about it, but actually take action on an item. In the previous council, there was a month later, every six weeks we’d get together as an industry, we’d have this meeting, and they would give us some information on stuff. But this, your current staff has embraced the concept of trying to make the process more efficient and more effective both for them and for the development industry and the building industry, and have really been proactive in looking at specific items that need to be reviewed through that customer service committee that was mentioned by staff.

[3:29:45] And the staff that were assigned to this particular project did an excellent job of looking at what holding provisions were doing, how they related to the handcuffs that are already there in planning, we like to call them handcuffs, but the requirements that are already in the planning documents in the planning application process in terms of clauses. So why do we have a holding provision on top of that, that does the exact same thing? And it’s just so you understand, holding provision previously used to have to come to council, that changed in law and it’s up to the staff to remove, but it’s still a process, still takes time, and there was a fee for removing holding provisions.

[3:30:24] And as you know, there was a couple hundred of them, and it got confusing both for staff, I believe, and for the proponents. So we did a very thorough job of looking at what’s required and what works, they also put together a manual, I’ll call it a manual, instruction guide to staff to about when and where the new H is to be used, which is excellent, we all understood it, we all had input on it. So it’s really, I just wanna thank staff, the staff team that were on this particular file, and the direction that council has given staff to be able to make the process more efficient and effective, and the changes to the holding provision piece, which seems small, but all important, in terms of trying to ensure that we have the housing supply to meet the demand that we know is coming to London.

[3:31:22] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, I’ll look for next speaker. Please sir, I give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon, it’s Frank Feldman, I’m a lawyer, I’m representing John Seabach, the owner of 459 to 461 Exeter Road, and I just wish to confirm that my client is not opposed to this zoning amendment provided that, as I understand, the amendment will not result in any change to the current zoning for 459 to 461 Exeter Road, and its current holding symbol, H17, other than renumbering H17, as I understand it, to be H108 from, and this is what I understand from Raven Boulevard, I just wanna confirm that, as long as that’s the case, my client’s not opposed to it, if there are changes, we would wanna have an opportunity for input after considering them, thank you.

[3:32:28] Okay, well, we’ll get to that after the PPMs concluded. I’ll look for other speakers. Please sir, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, my name’s Jeff Johnson, independent designer, I’m here representing Benny Matthews, who is looking to do a development at three, 1388 Sunningdale Road East. There’s been multiple provisions on this site.

[3:33:08] They do have it as an H8 now. We just wanna make sure that it’s not gonna limit us to do a development down in the future. We will do an impact study. We wanna make sure that the environmental integrity of that property remains. The developer is looking to put in a plaza off of Highbury Ave, and also a multi-story apartment building on Sunningdale, on that property. Just wanted to know what the provisions will include, and what the impact will be.

[3:33:49] Also conservation, will that impact what we’re planning on doing? Thank you. Okay, just like the previous gentleman, I’ll ask those questions when we’re completed here. I’ll look for the next speaker up at the top. Please give us your name, we have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jared Zayfum with the London Home Builders Association. Just quickly echoing Mr. Wallace’s comments on this and the work that staff have done with industry. One I am just, I guess, for more of a flagging and putting on record.

[3:34:23] Certainly from an industry perspective, we appreciated some of the changes that the provincial government made in relation to not needing site plan now for 10 units or less, but that as a result, one of the holding provisions which will be kept is to allow and to control development because staff can no longer at that stage, and so just wanted to put that out there for context. I certainly it’s something that I understand from staff perspective, but I feel that it may be sort of counter to some of the provinces initiatives there. Thank you.

[3:35:00] I’ll look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name, you have five minutes. Good afternoon. Maham and Missa, one five five four and a half. Two things I will mention that I can’t get used to or the one o’clock PEC meetings now and not a staff presentation in every instance. Having said that, I’d like to echo Mr. Wallace’s, Mr. Safeman’s, thank yous to staff. This was quite a Herculean task to do this.

[3:35:36] I do have some questions and some comments. First question is in regard to the proposed H101, let me start, sorry, let me start just ahead of that. First question is, I understand the 13 holding provisions that are there right now that are going to be used going forward. My question is, H100 and up are those sites specific going forward?

[3:36:11] Is that what the numbering will be? Having said that, second question relates to a previous agenda item where through the chair, Councillor from ward two had proposed an H101 and that’s in the table to be used but not to be used going forward, that holding provision. So just wondering are those provisions going to drop off over time and the H100 and up?

[3:36:48] Are they going to be site specific? Other question I have is with respect to minimum distance separations. There were four holding provisions that were relating to MDSs, H33, 36, 37, and 43. Three of those are not going to be, they were site specific, are no longer in use, will no longer be in use if this is accepted. And H37 will be relabeled H2.

[3:37:26] Am I to understand from what I’ve read in the 217 pages that there are only two properties in all of London that are affected by MDS? And I ask this because this will relate to the next agenda item. The other question I have about that is, how does staff determine, especially specifically with MDSs, whether a holding provision has been met? In most cases, holding provisions are on the developer or the builder or whatever the case may be, but with MDSs, it’s an adjoining property owner.

[3:38:07] So how, without it coming to committee and council, how is that determined when it’s an adjoining or another property owner that’s required to do something to remove the holding provision? I think those are all my questions and sorry for so many, just wanting some clarification on those issues. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I’ve noted most of them are all of them, I hope. I’ll look for other speakers.

[3:38:40] I’ll ask, Clerk, if there’s anyone online. Barbara. Please go ahead, give us your name and you have five minutes. We can’t hear you Barbara, I’m mute, thank you. Okay. There we go. Good afternoon Chair and Committee and staff and members of the public. My name is Barbara Rosser. I am planning consultant for Schlegel Villages pertaining to its Blendell Crossing at 3030, 3030 Singleton Ave and the H-53 holding provision that currently applies to the undeveloped portion of that property, which is on the west side.

[3:39:25] Development to date on the property by Schlegel Villages has consisted of two phases. First was the long-term care facility. And second was seniors apartments and assisted living facility. And that was of course permitted by the existing zoning, specifically the R-7 zone. Each phase required removal of the applicable H-53 zone, most recently in 2020 for phase two. And it was not possible at that time to remove the holding zone until after site plan approval and execution of a site plan agreement with the city.

[3:40:06] And as the committee’s aware, SPA is a detailed and fulsome process in itself. There were no public concerns expressed at the time of that molding zone removal. And it did represent an unnecessary delay in building permit issuance. The matter of time saving is noted on page one of the staff report. Schlegel Villages is in support of removal of the H-53 from the zoning by-law and more particularly from application to its 30 singleton property on the vacant portion of the land that will be the future phases three and four.

[3:40:50] And that will be comprised of similar development and subject to site plan approval. Our prior submissions to the city are noted on page one 53 and one 56 of the staff report. And so Schlegel Villages is seeking council or community support of the draft rezoning at Appendix A in respect to the removal of H-53 from the zoning by-law and specifically from the remaining 30 30 singleton lands to which it currently applies.

[3:41:24] And that is shown on the key map at page 201. So we are in support of the recommendation from staff and particularly in respect of the 30 30 singleton lands. Thank you very much. Thank you, look for any other speakers. I’ll ask if there’s anyone else online. Seeing none, we’ve got a motion to close with PPM through Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi and we’ll do a hand vote.

[3:42:01] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, there are a number of questions raised. So hopefully we’ll get through them. There was three specific properties and they were referring to holding provisions on those properties. There’s a general question to staff, how are we going to transition to this when we have existing applications with holding provisions? For existing applications that have holding provisions, so they’re still in the appeal periods in that regard.

[3:42:39] There will be a second housekeeping amendment coming. It’s planned for January or quarter one of 2025. That would address any applications that currently have holding provisions within them. That would be under the appeal and could not be covered within this amendment. Okay, so for example, the one property, 469, Exeter Road and they added H17 provision on that. Will that still be applicable? Through you, Chair. I see what you mean. So it will still be applicable. What’s proposed for H17 is that it’s to be not use moving forward in future applications.

[3:43:18] So we won’t be applying it onto properties newly or freshly. However, the existing properties that it’s applied to, it will be remaining. And what’s proposed through this amendment is that it will be renumbered to be H108, H108. And it will keep the exact same purpose. The intent of it will remain the same. So the zoning of 459, Exeter would remain the same. The zoning per use is not touched through this amendment. It’s only the H17 that would become H108. It’s the same purpose. And what about 1388 Sunnydale Road East? They had H8?

[3:43:53] Through you, Chair. So it’s the same or similar situation. 1388 has H currently. I just checked on the city map here. It would be proposed to become H8 through this amendment. So H is one of the holding provisions that are proposed to be kept in use. But moving forward, it would be referred to as H8. Okay. And finally, 3030 Singleton have H53 and H20. Those holding provisions would be removed. So there’d be, as part of this amendment, removed from existing properties.

[3:44:26] Okay, thank you. Now the one gentleman had a number of questions here. I’ll just refer to the staff presentation. As you can see from our agenda, there’s considerable staff work included in that agenda. I’ve found, and as Chair, that staff presentations are essentially repeating what’s in a public record on the agenda. So if I see a need for a further presentation to kind of highlight certain areas that is in the agenda, then I will call on them to do a staff presentation as we saw tonight.

[3:45:13] However, in order to keep things moving on, we all committee members have the agenda to do the public and they can read and ask questions based on that information. It doesn’t need to be repeated all the time at committee. There were some questions regarding H100 and up. Site specific, H101, when do they drop off, et cetera? You were here, you heard the questions. I wonder if staff can comment on that.

[3:45:52] Through you, Chair. So the purpose of renaming the holding provisions from H100 up, these are provisions that are being retained on properties. However, they’re not intended to be used in future applications. So while they’re remaining on existing properties, they won’t be applied in new circumstances. These have been chosen to remain due to certain site specific matters that mean the holding provision may not have been satisfied yet. So we do not want to remove them prematurely to ensure it’s organized and there’s differentiation between the holding provisions that are being kept in use and kept on properties, but not for use.

[3:46:29] That’s where the H1 to H13 comes in and H100 and up. The intention is for H100 and up, so it would go to H197, is that the housekeeping moment that I was speaking about in quarter one for 2025, that is where, oh, sorry, my mistake, as these H100 holding provisions are removed from properties, so as applications come in for holding provision removal, once these holding provisions are not present on any properties in the city any longer, that’s when another amendment would come forward to have it removed from the by-law. So that’s part of why it’s named H100 and up as well.

[3:47:03] So it’s differentiate that to understand. And finally, there was a question regarding how does staff determine when holding provisions are met, especially with MES or neighboring properties affected? Through you, Chair, so through the zoning by-law, each holding provision has a purpose and these conditions that need to be met. So when a holding removal application comes in, it’s reviewed if the purpose outlined in the zoning by-law has been met, has been cleared, so depending on what the holding provision is, there’s specific submissions that may need to be sent to the city from the applicant.

[3:47:50] In the case of MDS, for example, within the by-law, it specifically mentions that the MDS separations must be, or sorry, the intention of the MDS is for it to be executed and the only time the holding provision could be removed is if the animal livestock building or development is no longer in operation. So it’s to ensure that MDS separation calculations are performed and the only instance where that holding provision could be removed is if the livestock facilities are no longer present and that’s outlined in the by-law.

[3:48:31] Okay, thank you. Okay, that’s it for the questions I had. I’ll put this now on the floor for our committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, and with thanks to Ms. Bolivar for her first time presenting to us at Planning Committee, job well done, and I am happy to move the staff recommendation on this. Thank you, I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Cudi seconds, discussion, comments. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[3:49:04] Very briefly, this was a ton of work. Thank you very much. Holding provisions have been something. Since the day I arrived here, I thought we had way too many of them and we’re way too confusing and some were very close to others and streamlining this process and moving forward with a nice tight list, makes a lot of sense all around. I think it’s also important to thank those in the industry who participated in the process improvement table and gave their input on this as well. You folks have to work with this stuff too.

[3:49:38] And so a nice clear list that’s easily understandable by everyone makes a lot of sense. Their comments are questions. The committee will permit me a comment from the chair. Yeah, great work. Holding provisions have been daunting ever since I got in this committee last term. Councillor Hopkins was my tutor and many of those as she chaired and I was most impressed with her knowledge of holding provisions.

[3:50:09] I never thought I could get there and I probably still can’t with over 200. This was overdue, but with like, a lot of things, I know your plate is full and you’re just trying to deal with the day-to-day stuff. So it’s hard to add on this other task, but it’s an important task ‘cause it deals with the future processing of applications. So while it’s onerous to do this plus your day-to-day activities, it’s highly valued, highly valued from the efficiencies of processing applications from general understanding from members of this committee and council, understanding the public for the development community for builders of, you know, not all builders are large, you know, if there’s a lot of small builders that have to also go through this education process when they try to, you know, put an application through.

[3:51:09] So initiatives like this, I think are valuable on many levels. And so I applaud your committee or your division, Mr. Mathers, and the hard work by your staff and doing this and many other things. So some of the things that we touched on tonight that are making incredible differences in meeting our goals of getting applications processed efficiently without harming the, you know, the approval process that we go through and take very seriously, it’s, we’re not rubber stamping this stuff and just putting it through.

[3:51:54] They’re still being taken extremely seriously for the good of the city. But it’s a better way of doing things. So thank you very much. And thank you for the committee for indulging me on that. Before I, I’ll just look for any other comments where I call the vote. We got motion moved in second, I’ll call the vote. Close the votes, yes. Kerry votes, yes. Louis votes, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:52:32] Okay, moving on. We’ve got 20 minutes before five o’clock. We’re moving rather well through this. So let’s go to three, 14. And this is regarding our land needs assessment. I’ll look for, we’ll move for a public participation meeting. We’ve got a motion to open it up with Deputy Mayor Lewis. Second by Councillor Cudi, I’ll look for a hand vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[3:53:07] Thank you, look for speakers from the public that would like to address the committee. Mr. Wallace, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Thank you, I thought there might be a staff presentation beforehand, but that’s okay. Listen, thank you. It’s very important item, Mr. Chairman, members of council. Sorry, just a point of our, obviously not kind towards your time, Mr. Wallace. Was there a staff presentation? I just saw a staff kind of signaling you. We can go, if committee would like to go to that now.

[3:53:41] I’ll sit down. That’s fine, hold on, Mr. Wallace, sorry. Sorry, Mike. I better get up here before you go for dinner. Mr. Mathers, please go ahead. Sorry, just have a really brief intro just to provide some context around this. So yeah, before you today, a summary and recommendation based on our land needs assessment work that we’ve been undertaking. We were last before you in June. That’s where we were given the direction for further engagement. And we also were asked to undertake a housing supply marketplace analysis.

[3:54:13] So since that time, we’ve had further engagement with the community and housing supply reference group and undertaken the housing supply marketplace analysis that was requested by council. Also during this time, the province finalized a new provincial planning statement and also revised a 2020 and provided 2024 ministry of finance population projections. These revised projections have been used to develop our recommendations that you see today. The recommendations of the report have two main components. One is relates to the land needs assessment. And the other piece is the housing supply marketplace analysis.

[3:54:47] So I’ll break those two up, just give you a little bit of background on that. So the land needs analysis is strictly based on the provincial planning statement and the methodology that aligns with the approach that all municipalities take to determine their land supply needs. The housing supply marketplace analysis is not that standard approach what it does is it considers the recommendations the land needs study and analysis, but it also considers other factors not contemplated by the provincial policy statement. Factors like the high cost to land within the urban growth boundary, the business plans and land inventory that’s available to the local development community.

[3:55:24] It also looks at the ratio of approvals that council provide versus what we actually see in building permits. So the reason why and if there’s for the questions we’ll have the consultant here also to be able to answer any of this. The reason why that we feel that this is important to consider is that those are all factors that impact the pace of growth that we can get, the impacts housing affordability and the ability to achieve council’s 47,000 unit pledge. So as this is an innovative approach and it differs from how the province under typically sees land need analysis completed.

[3:55:59] We have made part of that recommendation a request to the province to consider the housing supply marketplace based methodology. So that’s a piece of this recommendation. So as far as next steps, if these recommendations are adopted by council, we’d start to accept some land owner requests for properties that we’d be evaluating for inclusion within the urban growth boundary. And then we would bring forward in the future mapping for council’s consideration of what that would look like. So as suggested in this report, we’d be bringing back two different scenarios.

[3:56:34] One scenario would reflect the land needs assessment that’s been completed and then the other scenario would be a 2000 hectare area recommended by the housing supply marketplace analysis. So we’re happy to take any questions after the public participation portion of the meeting. And we also do have the project lead from Collier’s project leaders who undertook the housing supply marketplace analysis. When you have any questions on that as well. So thank you very much and that’s my brief intro. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

[3:57:06] And just to kind of give in context, what is 2000 hectares look like? So 2000 hectares is a substantial amount of land. I’ll just give maybe from a context perspective that if you took the area that was bounded by a Fanshawe park road to the south, north by Sunningdale, Adelaide to the east and Richmond to the west, as approximately 340 hectares. So if you’re looking at 2000, that is approximately six, almost seven times that type of an area.

[3:57:43] Okay, thank you. Mr. Wallace, we’re still here. Still there, thank you very much. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. So I’m a bit of a, to the motion directly and then some more general comments afterwards. So what we’re asking Committee to look at is that on clause B of the wording you have in front of it, you’re using the 1,130 hectares, which is the 25 year piece that has come out of the staff work on the land needs assessment process.

[3:58:22] Staff were also instructed to look at 30 years, which is allowed under the new PPS, which wasn’t allowed previously, just so staff weren’t doing anything wrong, it just was not available to them till after the beginning of October. So if you look at that, it’s a 30 year planning horizon, instead of 25 year planning horizon. And on staff’s own, it’s right in your report, and staff’s own analysis, it’s 1,476. You’ll see a letter from SIFT in developments, also asking for a B to be changed to reflect the 30 year planning horizon, instead of the 25.

[3:59:02] So I wanted to start with that, just to get that on the table, make sure I get there. It’s consistent, Council always had asked staff to go to the max, which was allowed, which was 25, 30 is now allowed as the max, I’m asking Council to go to the 30 in review of what they could do in part B. Why, another reason for that is that it does provide a bit of contingency in terms of space for growth. The population projections are about 1.5% a year over the next 30, 40 years.

[3:59:42] And if you look at, I sent this out earlier this year, if this fall, the London plan is behind 17% to where it was predicted when that was passed. Even your Watson report is behind by over 7% already. So we think using the Ministry of Finance numbers is correct, you are seeing that growth, you’re seeing more growth in what you anticipated, and we see that as an history going forward. As you know, we believe that when we first started this process that an additional 3,000 hectares was appropriate.

[4:00:20] If you look what you did 27 years ago, or 26 years ago, I have a map on my office, you want to come see it. In 1997, you approve the current growth boundary we have now, I have a map, an aerial map of 1999, and it shows the delta between where growth was, whether at that time I guess you would call it the Bilteria boundary and where the new growth line was. And that was 25 years ago, you added 3,000, approximately 3,000 hectares.

[4:00:54] And I’m happy to show you that. And so we were under the assumption that if you’re looking for the next 25 to 30 years, you’re going to need another 3,000 hectares. And so obviously that’s analyzed against two things. One, what is the actual yield you’re getting now? Staff in their own report that you’re in front of you started at 20 units per hectare. We were able to show based on what is actually happening in subdivisions approved and built in the last number of years here in London, they were getting anywhere from 9 to 12 units per hectare.

[4:01:33] Staff went back, looked at things. In this report, this number is based, the land needs assessment number is based on 15 units per hectare. We’re still saying at the top it’s still 12. But we’re okay, that’s with 15. But just think about that, you might say 12, 15, that’s the big deal. That’s 3 units per 1,000 hectares, 3,000 units. That is a small city that’s not there. Then the other thing obviously you need to use, the VLI, the vacant land inventory, what’s left out of that boundary from 26 years ago?

[4:02:12] And staff around numbers, around 1,000 hectares. But even in their own report, it says 40% of it, or over 40% is designated in the London plan. But there’s no applications on it. There’s no guarantee it will develop. There’ll be people who own property on that vacant land inventory who don’t ever plan to develop. That land is not really as available as just it is in theory on paper. So we need to take that into consideration. The other thing we need to notice, that this urban growth boundary is within the city boundary.

[4:02:52] We’re not growing the city of London. It’s all in the city boundary. And if you don’t do it, if you don’t grow the urban growth boundary here, people will grow elsewhere on farmland surrounding London and drive in here every single day using your resources that taxpayers of London have paid for. They do not live in London paying property tax. You need to look at this very carefully. We are powerful with the 2,000 hectares that have come forward.

[4:03:25] We support what’s in front of you today. We ask for your consideration and your support of the motions that staff have put in front of you. Thank you. I look for other speakers. Mr. Levin, please go ahead, you have five minutes. My citizen Sandy had on. That’s a nice hat, Sandy. Thank you. All right.

[4:03:56] Sorry. All right, thank you. There we go. So I sat through both of the staff presentations along with Mr. Wallace. And the amount has grown from 450 hectares to either 1130 or 1476. There will be an urban growth boundary expansion. That’s not an issue here. But frankly, if you’re going to adopt Mr. Wallace’s suggestion of changing B to the 30 year, then you don’t need D&E to talk about 2,000 because that’s even beyond 30 years and beyond provincial policy.

[4:04:33] And there are risks because there are lands that are going to be developed here in somewhat leap front development. And yes, it is. Please. Chair. Chair. Let’s just keep to the speaker at hand. At Clark and Kalele, there will be a development that will be serviced by the city along Kalele with nothing coming between Webster and Clark, nothing to the north where there’s a gravel pit and nothing planned for the south presently.

[4:05:05] And there’s no property tax benefit by changing, but what’s in and out of the growth boundary because it’s based on change in land use. Forecasts are only good as inputs and the key variables are the provincial forecast. And if you look at 9.17 in your agenda, the province asks you to spend belief in some common sense. It ignores the federal government’s change in immigration and international student targets and asks you to believe that future governments in Ottawa will maintain half a million for immigration except for 27.28.

[4:05:46] I don’t buy that. I don’t think you should either. The provincial forecast also asks you to believe between the census of 2021 and 2024, the population of Sarnia moved to London. 70,000 people, so how were they housed? We only built 1500 units last year were much better this year. Even if of the 70,000, it was families of four, that’s 15,000 housing units. It didn’t happen.

[4:06:20] My point being, you already got a very optimistic forecast and you’re being told picking a number 2,000 out of the air is necessary, don’t think so. You also have a change in your densities and the density difference between 30 years ago was the forecast at that time was single family housing would make up 63% of the housing stock. That’s not in your forecast, thankfully, because that is in reality.

[4:06:54] It uses a 12-year time period to come up with lower densities not your watch 12-year period was used, but given it’s there, you’ve already got extra housing, extra land for housing. Also, page 919 talks about Dingman, and yeah, there’s fights about how much is developable. But right now, all 300 hectares have been excluded and added to the need. Frankly, you’re gonna do OP reviews every five years. Some of that land is gonna be added, it’ll certainly be added before 30 years is up.

[4:07:32] So you have chances to add land. You don’t have to jump all the way to 2000. And finally, the peer review claims that there’s a whole stream of people coming from Toronto. There’s been studies, even the School of Public Policy and Calgary, London wasn’t even in the top 10 list of where people were going based on census data, which is the only reliable data we’ve got. And even build the equivalent of the LDI for the GTA had a report earlier this year that showed the net in migration from the Toronto CMA in the period 2020-2021 was only 3500.

[4:08:12] So in closing, the boundary is gonna expand, but the amounts included in the staff report either for 25 or 30 years is gonna be sufficient. To ask the province to go beyond its own policy is frankly unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for the next speaker. Mr. Zafin, please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for members of Council Jared Zafin with the London Home Builders Association. First one to thank you for hearing us out on this. Certainly, it has been interesting seeing some of these numbers change, as we mentioned in part, because of some of the provincial forecast changing.

[4:08:52] And so I think having and the wisdom of Council asking for the housing supply marketplace analysis was actually quite wise, giving sort of a different data input that’s something a bit different than is really what was required, but does look at a number of other factors, including housing affordability, which is one of the most critical things we are talking about in our community. And frankly, when it comes to housing, the urban growth boundary is one of the biggest things that Council can impact to have an influence and impact on housing and housing affordability. And frankly, it was only a couple of years ago that I started in this role, and that we had a pandemonium of frenzy in our community of bidding wars, of prices going up.

[4:09:32] We were very steady as it goes for a long, long time, until just a few years ago when the biggest challenge was, there’s not enough supply. When I started, it was supply, supply, supply. And frankly, that really hasn’t changed. Now, Council has done a fantastic job at doing a number of approvals over the last year, a couple of years to ensure that when the market does come back, and it will be back in a very strong way, where there’s only so much pent up demand of so many people that are looking and waiting to buy that home or rent their home, that’s all going to start coming and crunching soon. Once interest rates slow down, we’re going to be seeing a lot of this come back, and we need to be absolutely ready to meet that demand.

[4:10:11] And make sure that we have a substantial amount, surplus of land, so that land affordability and home affordability are not challenged to the way that it was and continues to be. With ample supply of land, it allows the market to work better, creates greater affordability, variety and choice, and for the ability for people, families, to stay in London and people that might choose London as a future home can actually afford to come here. Expanding the boundary appropriately also keeps people in London, as was mentioned, instead of outside communities, which has a much more significant impact on the environment.

[4:10:46] Again, as well as was rated before, an impact on taxes leaving the city, impacting our infrastructure without people paying forward, who are going to be using it every day. And one final thing I just wanted to leave members of the committee with is, it’s thinking about us from a historical perspective, and from a longer historical perspective, London’s last annexation was in 1993, with this expansion shortly after it, as was mentioned, approximately 3,000 hectares. And just going back, that annexation was in large part to ensure that there is enough of a concentrated urban area for growth, so it’s not as much encroaching on our rural neighbors and friends.

[4:11:23] That annexation almost doubled the size of the city of London, and for the growth that we had over that same time period of approximately 3,000 hectares getting added to the growth boundary, think of what the growth has been over the last few years and what we’re projecting over the next 25 years, 30 years, and what’s going to be required for that, just to meet our population growth, but again, to have the supply and variety of homes that we need for all Londoners. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. I’ll ask the, oh, second. Please, sir, go ahead, you have five minutes.

[4:12:02] Good afternoon again, committee. Muhammad Musa, 554 and F. Just to touch on the staff presentation, thank you for that. I always like hearing rationale, planning principles, and legislation as to why they came up with the recommendations that they did. Having said that, new parental planning statement allows for up to 30 years maximum.

[4:12:39] We’re at a point right now where, as Mr. Wallace had said, that urban growth boundary has not changed since vision 96. We’re hitting the bounds of it right now. I know we revisited it back in 2013, and then when the London plan came into effect and we need to revisit it, I think, by 2026 to meet the legislative requirements. I would ask committee and council to go to the 30-year mark for a couple of reasons.

[4:13:17] My rationale, you’re not going to have leapfrog development. It’s too costly, respectfully, to Mr. Levin. Takes deep pockets to be able to leapfrog. And in redrawing the urban growth boundary, please don’t allow for leapfrogging. The reason I’m saying to go to the 30-year mark is based on the fact that if you make it too small, you’re concentrating develop a lens in lesser hands, which would drive the cost up.

[4:14:02] Further, it does go out, and trust me, I am not one who likes to see agricultural lands or green fields to be taken over by development. I do not like urban sprawl, but we’re here. We need to build homes, we need that, and we need it to be affordable. So having said that, the other question that I have is somewhat of a hypothetical to staff, but it’s pretty much going to be a reality within the next six, eight months. MDSs, if one has property that gets pulled into the UGB, that has a livestock operation, does that individual corporation, whatever the case may be, have the right to keep that MDS radius until he, she, or it in case of a corporation decides to develop.

[4:15:05] Does that MDS stay in place? The thing too is having been at a previous meeting where this was presented, just want to go on the record, like just want this other question on the record is, how many properties could possibly come in, where there are operating livestock facilities or anything else with MDS regulations, mushroom farms or whatever the case may be. I know they’re smaller now than what they were in the past, but yeah, so those are my two questions and my comments.

[4:15:44] Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to the gentleman up on the far right. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, my name’s Brendan Samuels, I don’t think I’m going to need my full time. I think this is one of the most consequential decisions that this council is going to make materially in terms of shaping the growth trajectory of London and the landscape. As I mentioned earlier, my task in working with the advisory committees is to think about long-term planning to do with climate change, biodiversity loss, et cetera.

[4:16:18] I understand the growth pressures, I understand the need to build housing. I appreciate the perspectives of the developers who are here, who have a financial stake in the decisions that you’re making. I do not have a financial stake. I’m here speaking to the comments, speaking to the wealth that belongs to the public in terms of green space, in terms of agricultural productivity, et cetera, for the long term. I don’t know enough to evaluate the decision at hand here, and that scares me a little bit.

[4:16:51] My advisory committee actually had put this on our work plan for the year, and when I started talking to members of my committee representing voices from the public, we had a lot of questions to do with the assumptions underlying the decisions that you’re making. We assume things about the growth trajectory of London, migration of people. We assume things about how much things cost. And there’s a whole bunch of assumptions, assumptions within assumptions stacked under this decision that are not written anywhere. It’s really actually hard for the public to understand materially what you’re talking about. And so I would ask, you know, in thinking about these kinds of decisions to do with land needs assessments, you know, the Ward boundary review is another conversation that’s coming up that’s super complex, that is going to radically alter the landscape of London.

[4:17:40] And I just feel like we’re not doing a good job of bringing people along and translating information into a format that allows them to meaningfully be consulted. And so I just wanted to express that frustration from a community point of view. Obviously the urban growth boundary is going to be moved. It’s really, really tough for you to hear perspectives that are not motivated by profit-seeking development. Frankly, you’re going to hear voices concerned about environmentalism, concerned about climate. We’re not always speaking the same language. And I think that comes down to the stories that we tell about these decisions and the assumptions.

[4:18:15] Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to the gentleman up at the top left. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Julian Novik, president of the London Home Voters Association. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. And I thought it was important to participate in this process. I’ve been involved with various reference groups on this matter and have attended every meeting with staff prior to this. I think it’s been an interesting and a certain thoughtful dialogue to get to where we are today. I would like to mention one comment. As far as the financial stake in this, obviously, is a home building professional.

[4:18:48] We do have a financial stake in this, but we can build whatever product people want. Our financial motivation moves with the market. It moves with the product Londoners want to build. And the more choice Londoners have, the better a community is for everyone. I would like to speak a little bit about the risks of the different approaches we’ve talked about today. When we first spoke about some of the earlier projections and numbers, we asked, what were the downsides of building— sorry, including less lands?

[4:19:21] And we know a lot of the downsides. We have higher costs of construction, bidding wars and these different problems that come up. But I just want to speak to the risks. And the risks and the downsides with the other approach. Presently in London, there aren’t tracks of empty lots. There aren’t tracks of empty homes. There aren’t empty roads. There aren’t empty schools. Libraries or hospitals.

[4:19:53] The need for housing in London is real. More people are choosing to live in London than ever. We need to support that population and find places for those people to live. So with that, we encourage you guys to say— sorry, the committee to say yes to housing. We support the 2,000 hectare recommendation and a longer horizon for the city. Thank you. I understand there is someone online, Clark. Lila. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, everyone.

[4:20:26] So my name is Lila Bloomer and I’m a resident of Ward 5. And my request to you is a little bit different from those that you’ve already heard. I’m requesting that the committee defer a decision about whether to initiate a review of the urban growth boundary until a proper public consultation process can happen. The report on this agenda item is 97 pages long, as was already mentioned. It was released less than a week before this meeting. It’s not posted on the Get Involved London page. And that’s not enough time for average people, Londoners, to read through that whole report, understand it and react to it.

[4:21:03] And I don’t understand how it’s enough time for you as a committee to consider even the comments that have been made here today and be ready to make an informed decision. So there’s three reasons that I’m asking for a deferral. One is to take time to look at the decisions about growth that have brought us to where we are as a city today. I agree. I think we need to question status quo assumptions about communities. Our relationship with land is becoming more and more transactional, and that is not going well. We have communities that are prone to flooding, heat islands, and they’re all built around independence on fossil fuels for transportation.

[4:21:46] There’s a limited number of options for people to own and rent homes, particularly first-time homeowners and seniors. So instead of continuing to use the same assumptions for determining how people should be housed, what if we take time to actually consider alternatives? Without a shift in the way that communities are designed, any expansion is actually just going to expand the challenges that we already have. So insufficient housing, rising GHG emissions, traffic congestion, food insecurity, social isolation, failing physical and mental health and well-being.

[4:22:20] And none of this is covered in the report and the recommendations that are in front of you today. Second reason is to take time to explore who benefits from expanding the urban growth boundary, and who benefits from the timing of making a decision about it right now. It’s clear from the report and from the two public meetings that I attended that it’s developers whose perspectives are reflected in the report in front of you, who are the focus of the housing supply market analysis, and who formed the overwhelming part of the public consultation to date. And while clearly developers are an important part of the picture, they are only one piece of the picture.

[4:22:57] So how are the voices of everyday Londoners heard? So Londoners from different walks of life, from a range of income levels, ages, abilities, careers, and cultures and interests. How do they, we, share our perspectives about the kinds of homes and communities that we want to live in? With respect, it’s not enough to post reports on the city’s website and ask for input. There should be at least the same investment in consultation with the public, as there is in consultation with developers. And the third reason is to take time to consider the impact of an urban growth boundary expansion, both for people and the environment.

[4:23:37] Is it actually going to help address the lack of adequate housing by providing more land at a lower cost on the outskirts of the city that might incentivize developers to build? But the density assumptions decreased from 20 to 15 units per hectare for low density residential and 44 to 41 for mid-density residential. So that just in itself needs more exploration and explanation. And I’m noting Councillor Pelosi’s comment earlier about the refrain that’s often heard that it’s not affordable to build affordable homes. Can we actually look into this instead of just accepting it as the way it is?

[4:24:14] I think the unfortunate truth is that we’ve created a situation where land is valued less as a source of sustenance and environmental stability. And it’s valued more when it’s covered with bricks, mortar, or stick frame housing and roads. The report mentions the city’s strategic plan focus area of climate action and sustainable growth. But I don’t understand how exactly initiating review of the urban growth boundary with the intent of expanding it between 1,200 and 2,000 hectares addresses the city’s commitment to reducing emissions, transforming transportation, or improving the physical and social resilience of existing communities.

[4:24:55] There are just so many other issues here, which is why I’m speaking so quickly. Apologies. [INTERPOSING VOICES] OK. OK, I’m going to say there’s a need to hit pause to consider all of this and so many more questions that are part of this issue. So I’m asking you not to move it forward, thinking that there are going to be other points in the process that can address these issues. I’d like to pause it here. Include more ways for the public to be informed and engaged meaningfully. Thank you. I know that there are a lot of significant issues and decisions and discussion happening here today.

[4:25:28] And I really appreciate the hard work that you’re doing. There’s been an email sent to the committee with the same request. Thank you. Thank you. That’s your time. I’ll go to the lady up at the top right corner, please. You have 30 or five minutes, and please give us your name. Thank you. It’s Marianne Hodge. This report has left me with a number of questions. I would like to know from this council, what is your vision for London? When you close your eyes and think about what London might look like with a population of 675,000, what do you see?

[4:26:07] Will we have a built up downtown that is vibrant and alive with people and activities? How will people get around? What are the changes we’re going to see in London? Will we start looking like a larger city? Will we look like, say, the Toronto of the ’90s or Mississauga from the 2000s? Do we aspire to be more like Paris? Or will we end up more like Mexico City? I love the concept of designing with the end in mind. So I ask you, what end are we heading for? In this report, I see a long wish list for the development community.

[4:26:45] It reminds me that Christmas is coming. It would be nice to have a comparable list from the planning community. What makes for a great neighbourhood? How do we actually design for affordability? The developers admit in this report that they have no interest in affordable housing unless they are paid to do it. They ask the city to look at, quote, “market forces” to guide the direction of planning. Isn’t that what we tried with affordable housing? And look where that got us. The report says that housing is, quote, financially attainable.

[4:27:22] Sorry, the report says that housing that is financially attainable are row houses and stacked townhouses. Yet the developers want the urban growth boundary extended so that the highest percentage of new housing starts are singles and semis. Help me to understand how this makes housing financially attainable. And what would affordability look like for these families in single family homes at the edge of the urban growth boundary? Would they be required to be two car families because it will be too expensive to send transit to the far reaches of the city?

[4:27:55] Will families need to drive their kids everywhere? Will teens have the independence of transit to get to jobs, schools or sports? No wonder people complain about being in their cars too much. But let’s get back to that vision for London. 20 years ago, I was working as a facility manager for a private company when they built a new office building in Toronto. The accountants were concerned about their return on investment as this was an infill project. They were concerned about affordability as they were going to live in this building and have to pay to operate and maintain it.

[4:28:30] They wanted to retain their staff so having a good quality of life was important. And they were going to build excess space and sublease it so it needed to be highly marketable. Their answer was to build this as a lead certified building on existing transit with bike storage, EV chargers and low operating costs due to its energy efficiency. When we think about expanding the urban growth boundary, are we thinking about the long term vision of how London will function? Are we so afraid of setting the standards too high that the development community will walk away?

[4:29:06] I read from the report that there are many challenges to development expanding the growth boundary is only one. Let’s look at how we can be creative. We’re just starting to see the conversion of empty buildings and surface parking lots to create more residential towers. Our first priority should be using the land we already have. Another challenge identified was the lack of sewer and storm capacity in some areas of the city. We’re already working on this too. And now there is federal funding to help. I agree with Lella.

[4:29:40] There are too many other perspectives we have not yet heard. The window if time is now. Once this decision is made, there will be no turning back. Developers point to our cultural bias towards single family homes as the ideal housing we all aspire to and that we just need more. This report says that affordability is about the type of housing, that townhouses and stacked townhouses are the most affordable. This type of housing requires less land. If the goal is to make housing more attainable, then we need to be having the conversation about alternate forms of housing, including supportive housing, which actually saves the city money by reducing the demand on emergency services and help solve homelessness.

[4:30:29] Let’s take a pause. Decisions made and hast are not always the wisest decisions. If the city has a vision for London, now is the time to share it. Let’s start with the end in mind. Thank you. Thank you. I understand there’s someone online. Is there someone online? Please go ahead. You have five minutes, but then give us your name. Thank you. I’m Bo Lonsbro. I’m just gonna speak personally. There’s been a lot of talk about this urban growth boundary and its implications on the environment and the pricing of housing.

[4:31:05] I’d just like to give an example of the government. When a government restricts where they can build in an extreme case, you get Hong Kong prices, right? There’s high rises galore, there’s environment. And then that’s what you get in an extreme case. So it really increases the prices of housing to limit it. And I’m not a local from London. I’m from Windsor, but I’ve lived in all across Ontario and I’ve lived in a bunch of different cities. And I do find it strange that the amount of attention is going on to essentially save farmland within city limits of the city of London.

[4:31:41] As Mike Wallace pointed out earlier, we’re talking about within city limits. We’re not talking about expanding the boundary of the city. And when I drive in the city and I get off the 401 and I get in there and I’m driving through areas that are corn and wheat, I’m aware of this, where’s the city of London? And why are we talking about saving agricultural land within the city boundary? That is just bizarre to me. I just want to throw that perspective out. I’m like, I can understand if it was about lush forest and a natural green belt where we’re protecting the forest, right, that’s very important.

[4:32:14] But we’re really talking about wheat and corn production within city limits. So I think there’s some comments where it gets blown out of proportion. Like I think the city of London should definitely be looking to build within their city limits. Rightfully so. And I think that’s very, you know, what city should be doing. So I think that’s all meant for me. Thank you very much. Thank you. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone else online. There’s no one else online. Anyone else in the gallery would like to speak? Seeing none, we have a motion to close a PPM by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cudi.

[4:32:49] All favor, show hands. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. Mayor has joined us, so I will go to the mayor. Yeah, no, I’ve been here for a while listening in. And I appreciate the work that Penny’s done today. I wanted, I’m happy to move the staff recommendation, but I actually do prefer the modified B, going to the 30 year time horizon. I’ve circulated language to our staff on that.

[4:33:23] And then I’m happy to provide some rationale to get the debate going. Okay, I’m happy to second that motion. And I’ll go back to the mayor. Yeah, I know there’ll be a lot of discussion. Sorry, point of order. Any point, can we see the motion? Like circulated if East Drive’s not working, could it be emailed again? No, I’m sure, I’ll ask Clerk to email and do that. In the meantime, I missed a cognizant of the mayor’s commitments. Apparently important that upcoming meeting, so I’ll go to the mayor now.

[4:33:57] Yeah, and I don’t mind, so the members of the public know, like if the different part B needs to be read out, Clerk can do that. Like, I think it’s important for people to know what the motion says. I wasn’t aware that East Drive wasn’t working. If the Clerk would like to read it out. Part B, that the Civic Administration be directed to initiate an urban growth boundary review for inclusion of approximately 1,476 hectares of developable land to accommodate planned growth consistent with the land needs assessment, community growth, 30 year planning horizon.

[4:34:37] Okay, Mayor, go ahead. All right, thanks. So, I appreciate all the work staff has done. First off, it’s a tremendous amount of work to engage in a growth boundary review. And of course, we’re one step in the process here, including the different approvals at the provincial level. But there’s a couple of things that I considered when deciding to support the staff recommendation as well as putting a position out that would create, essentially if the economic analysis numbers don’t work, a fallback position of the province may go forward within the PPS that it’s more appropriate on the longer time horizon.

[4:35:22] Because, you know, we’ve got a number of challenges with the fast growing city here. And so in the best case scenario, the city grows as anticipated the numbers were able to incorporate the mass mobility plan. We’re able to provide proper transit in community facilities. This will require support and investments from other levels of government. But most importantly, we grow in a way that allows for growth within the city where we can supply all of the things I mentioned. The worst case scenario is that we restrict land use within the city.

[4:35:55] And if you drive around the outskirts of the city in Kilworth, Comocha, Elderton, Arva, Thamesford, you see an explosion of small single family homes across the immediate region within the city of London. That is no access to transit. That people who are driving into the city and consuming city resources. And, you know, Mike Moffitt talks about the, as an ex-urban growth problem, it is real. And because we do not have a larger regional planning framework, the province hasn’t engaged in that piece.

[4:36:29] We have to supply adequate land within the city of London for an environmental perspective to ensure that people aren’t sprawling across small communities surrounding the countryside around our city. So, proper growth with proper transit and proper facilities within the city of London on a time horizon that gives us the time to have the population come, to build the city out in a way that is responsible. I think is a way to go. Now, in a worst case scenario where the population growth doesn’t come to fruition, it’s just gonna be much longer before we do another urban growth boundary reveal.

[4:37:02] So, if it’s not a 30 year time horizon, if it takes 40 years, if it’s a population slows down or the immigration, which may change now, but may go back up as governments change, if over the period of a few decades, that doesn’t come to fruition. We’re just not gonna be doing an urban growth boundary review sooner rather than later. The next one, right? This one took a long period of time to get to. We can set ourselves a direction. We can adequately plan the city in that geographic envelope. We can ensure that we provide proper services.

[4:37:36] We can engage with other levels of government on their support for the proper components for transit and congestion, provision of schools, community facilities, libraries, all of the things that we need as a growing city to ensure that we’re not just creating housing and providing water and sewer to them, but we’re creating quality of life in our city. We get the urban growth boundary to the right level. We can actually adequately plan our city. And so to the number of the speakers in the gallery, we do have a vision for the city. It’s a vision that aligns with many of the things that have been promoted by members of the community.

[4:38:09] We want a city that is sustainable. We want a city that works. We want a city that is the center of this part of the region. And we want the growth to happen within the city limits, not scattered in small communities around it. This is the center for commerce, education, healthcare, opportunity, entertainment, and it is a growing part of this province. And that’s probably not going to change anytime soon. So I’m happy to support staff’s recommendation with that small modification. I still think it’s appropriate to submit the economic analysis numbers to the minister for their consideration.

[4:38:45] But in the situation where they don’t pursue that, I think the 30 year time horizon is more appropriate as the secondary position within the recommendation. I know there’ll be lots of discussion and debate. I will just flag for colleagues. There may be a point at this meeting, depending on how long the debate goes. I have meeting with senior opposition leaders as well as the prime minister within the next hour, hour and a half. So there may be a point of which I may need to seek a different mover if I have to step out of the meeting at some point. Mr. Chair, I’ll just warn you about it ahead of time. Okay, thank you for the heads up.

[4:39:18] I’ll open this up to the committee. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few questions through you to staff. Regarding the recommendation part of the land order requests would come to staff for potential inclusion. How would staff see this process being facilitated who would get it and where does that information go in the end?

[4:39:54] Just let me see what the process is. I’ll go staff through the chair. So we have already received a number of requests. We included those in an appendix to the report. Through the get involved page, landowners can email or call us and request properties to be reviewed and evaluated. There will also be blocks of land surrounding the existing boundary that staff will review. And all of them will be reviewed against the same evaluation criteria. So an email identifying an address is so far what we consider to be sufficient.

[4:40:33] Councilor. Thank you. Another question. In regards to part D and E of the 2000 hectares of development land, realizing this is the land’s need assessment for community growth. Is this just, there’s a lot of numbers floating here. Is this 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, just a number? Just looking to see as I accidentally read through all the panics sees. So now they’re all mixed up in my head of A through D or whatever we were into.

[4:41:05] Go to staff through the chair. So there isn’t an actual projection value associated with this, but it would be a lot more than a 30 years based on the approach that the the the the the sorry, I’m just missing that piece. That based on the preferential policy planning statement methodology, he would be larger than that 30 year value. Councilor. Thank you. As the report had laid out that these would be plans or reports that we’re asking our staff to make of one for the amended part B and then the 2000 hectares.

[4:41:45] I’m going to ask the clerk to call D and E separate as I’m not inclined to support those at this time. And I don’t want staff doing extra work that I’m interested in. All right, we’ll call it B and E separate. Deputy Mayor Lewis. So before we start pulling everything apart, I think we might need a little clarification on what Mr. Mathers was just saying to Councilor Plosa. D and E staff wouldn’t do any work on until the province indicated whether or not they accepted it, right? And then if they accept it, we move with that.

[4:42:18] And if they don’t, we move with B through to staff. I’ll go to staff through the chairs. So we’re likely to start this work immediately if we can. So we’re looking at a couple of different scenarios. So we would start with, of course, with that base land needs assessment value and then add to that. So if we don’t hear back from the province in a timely way, we would likely progress with that work. But it’s not a huge amount of additional work to look at that delta.

[4:42:52] But we may be doing that in tandem before we hear back from the province. But if we do hear from the province, then we would cease any work on that additional amount of land. Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thank you. Just wanted to get clarification on that. And appreciate that in the preliminary days, it’s not a lot of extra work to be looking at both. Obviously you’ve got a number of pieces of land that have already been submitted for your consideration that you’ll be looking at regardless. So I’m going to be supportive of all of this. And I want to come back to what the mayor said about the comments from Mike Moffatt.

[4:43:30] And we heard this from Mr. Wallace as well. The idea that growing inside our city is urban sprawl. To me is something that has been factually proven to be false. What is urban sprawl is the ex-urban growth that we are seeing. And I see it all the time. I see it in Dorchester, in Thorndale, in Thamesford, in Kamoka, it’s happening all around us. And it is very scattered. And it is true that we have residents, and I’ve seen the outmigration from my own ward.

[4:44:07] Families that I see at the arena on Saturday morning, ‘cause their kid plays hockey in London, but they live in Thorndale because they got a cheaper house price out there. And so when they moved out of their townhouse and into a single family home, they moved to Thorndale. And now they don’t pay us any property taxes, but they drive in and play hockey in our arenas. They shop in our grocery stores. They depend on our snow plows to plow the roads like they’ve been doing today so that they can get to work because they still work in London. They commute in every day. That, to me, is urban sprawl.

[4:44:43] That, to me, is unplanned growth. And I would rather have the growth in the city limits than outside the city limits. And I will say that this is one piece of how we manage growth. We’ve approved a lot of zoning bylaws today. We manage growth through zoning bylaws. We have a GMIS that sets the pacing of when our infrastructure is rolled out and developed. That controls where and when development can happen.

[4:45:19] So this, to me, is not giving the developers. In fact, we heard they want 3,000. Their best case scenario is 2,000. This is not just giving them whatever they want. This is looking forward and thinking about how we grow our city. And to me, ensuring we have enough developable land. And we heard Mr. Zafeman reference the annexation. This land was annexed into our municipal city limits so that it would be developable over time.

[4:45:53] And we are at the time now where we have to look at what is the next chunk of land we want to develop. And we don’t have crystal balls to project exactly what’s going to be a perfect number. Because in some cases, and we dealt with this earlier in the meeting in the consent agenda with floodplain mapping that we’ve been waiting 10 years for. That we don’t know if some of the land, even in our current vacant land inventory, is going to be able to be developed or not. So I think having a contingency in there in the 30-year timeframe makes a lot of sense.

[4:46:30] You know, we hear all the time, we want bigger setbacks, we want natural heritage features preserved, we want. Well, when you start taking all that land out of the equation, not to mention schools, roads, all that stuff, adding whether it’s the 1476 or the 2,000, we have to think about the fact that there’s other components of quality of life that have to go into those developable lands as well. So I’m supportive of where the mayor’s going on this. I think, as he said, the worst case scenario is in 30 years, they don’t have to do another expansion.

[4:47:09] They got time to think about it even further. So I think this is a good direction for us to go. Thank you, look for other comments, questions. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. And I have a couple questions, maybe through you. Can we pause this assessment? That was one question that was sort of asked by the community of the land needs assessment, can be paused.

[4:47:41] I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, it would be within Council’s purview to pause or stop the assessment. This is part of that overall official plan update that we’re doing. So this is one of the components, and that would be up to Council to determine. Councilor. And following up with that, the urban growth boundary review, one is that expect it to come back to us. Go to staff. Through the chair, we’re projecting and targeting right now for Q2 2025.

[4:48:17] Councilor. 2025, sorry, I missed that first part. What call it? Go to staff. Through the chair, Q2, Councilor. Thank you. So that’s Q2 and 2025, and I have one last question through you, Mr. Chair, just to understand a little bit more of the changes with this amendment and the consequences of that. Could you speak to that? Or are there any consequences?

[4:48:50] Or are we just changing a number of that we’ve got at 25 at 1,130 hectares to 30 years at 1,476, is it just extending that five-year horizon out is all we’re doing? And how does, are there consequences in that? Go to staff. Through the chair, so in general, what this would be doing is it would flag for everyone involved, the community, the development industry, a certain amount of land, and that would be our focus over the next 30 years for growth.

[4:49:34] So it would very much flag for the industry and the community that those lands are gonna be projected for housing and community growth in the future. So that very much does have an significant impact as far as us doing our planning work. It allows us and our friends in the engineering areas to be able to start planning for what’s the infrastructure required, it allows our planning folks as well to take a look at what are those communities what are they gonna look at, like? How are they going to interact? How are they going to be able to be cohesive part of London?

[4:50:09] So it does provide a longer time period for us to be able to accommodate for those properties and lands. As well, it does provide more opportunities for housing in different locations as well. So that’s probably the biggest impact. Of course, anything that does move forward, what’s good in London is that we very much have some good approaches to deal with those types of things, like a growth management implementation strategy. Council has a way to be able to have ways to be able to control growth moving forward and just keeping some of those very significant and powerful policies would be part of any kind of a expansion, allowing for an expansion as well.

[4:50:56] And then on an application-by-application basis, Council would have the opportunity to decide whether that’s something that would be moving forward. But that very much does have an impact on housing supply and it does really flag again for the community and for the development community that lands are anticipated for new housing and growth. Those are. Yeah, thank you. I really do appreciate hearing that ‘cause you’re the ones that do the work and I need to understand that. I just wanna make a couple of comments here.

[4:51:31] I have concerns about the changes. I’m still looking to hear from the committee about why this change is more appropriate. I know this will go to Council. I have concerns. I had to reread this again. When we talk about this assessment, it is about community growth and it’s just not the development community. I appreciate the comments coming from the development community. But to me, it’s not the business plan of the development community.

[4:52:04] It is about community and how we draw in these assumptions and how we make these decisions. There’s a lot of assumptions here that I have a number of concerns about. So I’m just gonna make those comments to the committee. Really looking to hear more why we need to do, make these changes. Thank you, other comments or questions? I’ll go to the mayor first.

[4:52:48] I’ll go to Councilor Trusso. I think Councilor Trusso, I was at first, I was gonna respond to something Councilor Hopkins said, so I don’t wanna jump in front of him if he’s got something. Okay, Councilor Trusso, I’ll go ahead. You should go first ‘cause you’re probably gonna be responding to what I say as well. So it’s up to the city. Listen, we’re not gonna get into this. Councilor Trusso, please go ahead. I heard some very, through the chair, I just wanna thank the people that came out and spoke tonight. I was expecting to see a much bigger crowd here, but I think we got a lot of submissions.

[4:53:25] I heard some very compelling reasons why we should hit the pause button on this. And what I haven’t heard is other than the fact that other cities, other surrounding communities may go ahead and step up their development. I haven’t heard a really good argument as to why we should not hit the pause button now. And what I wanna go back to staff and ask, and I know Councilor Hopkins did ask this, but I just wanna bring it up again. What is the downside legally of us not taking this action right now?

[4:54:01] Do we run, what risks do we run? And I guess that’s my first question, yeah. All right, so I’ll go to staff. We don’t have our legal, I believe. Okay, please go ahead, through the chair. So this is an official plan review under section 26 of the Planning Act. It requires that a land needs assessment that does this evaluation of your projected growth and your land supply to be able to support it. It’s required within the first 10 years of your plan coming into force, and then within every five years after that.

[4:54:39] So it is open to Council’s discretion if they want to pause it, but it has to be completed by the first 10 years of the land plan coming into force, which is January of 2027, Councilor. Thank you, and that is a very crisp, direct answer to my question. So we would potentially be facing sanctions after 2027, but what possible sanctions would we be facing now, if any?

[4:55:16] I just wanna get really clear on this. Okay. - ‘Cause I am, yeah. I’ll go to staff, through the chair. None that I’m aware of. It is more a matter of opening up the available land supply to deal with the housing crisis, and to be consistent with the targeted actions report that Council brought forward in April, but I don’t believe there’s any repercussions for pausing now. Go to Council.

[4:55:48] Thank you. So I’ll make my comment through the chair then. I’m inclined right now to want to put a pause on this, and I’m not sure, I think we have to give some very serious thought as to whether that should be for one year or two years, but I want to go through the submissions again, and I want to try to understand what the downsides are for us if we do that. And I will certainly be doing a lot of work on this between now and the time of the Council meeting. But again, to summarize, I heard some very compelling reasons why we need to be getting more input from a broader variety of people from different walks of life other than the development community.

[4:56:30] One thing I’m worried about is the day that we bring this additional land into the urban growth boundaries, there is gonna be an appreciable run-up of the value and the cost of that land, which will be, it could be inflationary, and it’s also not gonna do anything. It’s not gonna do anything to help us with affordability. It’s certainly not gonna do anything to help us with preserving farmland. So I’m very worried about the direction we’re going in here, and I will give this a lot of thought.

[4:57:04] I can’t vote here today, I can’t make an amendment. I see the direction that this is going, but I will be giving this a lot of thought between now and the Council meeting, and thank you very much for hearing me. Thank you, Councillor, I’ll go to the mayor. Yeah, I appreciate the committee’s discussion. There was one item I wanted to touch on for you, Mr. Chair, that Councillor Hopkins was talking about why 30 years, we can do 25 years, under the provincial rules. They adjusted the rules to be able to plan on a 30 year time horizon.

[4:57:38] The adjustment of the numbers is simply staff’s calculation of the difference in those two timeframes. It’s not numbers I made up myself. I’m just suggesting that we actually use the full scope of what the province allows us to in that piece. The reason why I think that that can be a responsible thing is based on what Councillor Troso just said. Listen, like there is all sorts of speculation that happens on land outside the urban growth boundary. And if you want to go through that whole process again sooner rather than later, then we could do it in 25 years and then have to start again.

[4:58:12] But if we extend this and just get it taken care of, we will have very definitively said as a council, this is a long time horizon. This is the land that will be in the city limits. We’re going to really plan that land really well and end speculation for a number of decades about future lands and what those lands are, we determined by our staff’s analysis of what makes sense. But I think that we take the longer time horizon the province has given us. Let’s set the boundary of the city within that projected need for that time horizon and get on with actually planning the city and growing the city in a responsible way that provides a great quality of life as well.

[4:58:55] Thank you. Look for other speakers, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard it here tonight too. Like once you give something, you really can’t take it back. And that’s part of my concern here. In 25 years, I don’t want to say in a rude way, I hope none of us are still here that we’ve found other fulfilling things to maybe find our time. But we’re looking at more infill and development. I would love, there has been definitely leapfrog development as well. There’s infill projects, their brownfields be cleaned up as well.

[4:59:31] And we also have the office to residential conversion that the mayor has been champion that we’ve seen some uptick on. So I think that’s wonderful. For me, that’s why I’m looking at the lower threshold that I’m interested in, not kicking the can down the road, but let other elected officials review this when the time’s appropriate. It was mentioned tonight, this is just an expansion of our needs and the urban growth boundary as the word Councillor. In 1993, we did annex Clanworth.

[5:00:05] My residents are asking, when do they get neighbors? And they feel very under-service by the city as they’re dealing with their well water, of what’s gonna come their way. Is anything ever gonna come their way? And as we look at opening up the applications of who’s interested, and I see the page filling in at the back of this report, for me looking at development charges as we develop that I would be usually more inclined to do it. We’re servicing already on one side of the road, just allowing it on the other, ‘cause we’re already there in the services there, versus running new infrastructure out at a high cost to areas that I would say are no less deserving, just a higher cost.

[5:00:51] A question through you to staff, realizing there’s development charges and gaps. At what point will we become aware of what lands we can actually afford to service? Good stuff, through the chair. So as part of our, the development charges process, that starts with having the land available and being able to have a urban growth boundary to base that work on. So there’s a little bit of a chicken and egg piece to this.

[5:01:24] The concept and the overall concept is that, and we always go by, is that growth is paying for growth. So whatever development concept that is developed or urban growth boundary expansion that’s developed would need to be funded through those development charges moving forward. So once this is established by council, then that would feed into our development charge process and there would be servicing plans and all sorts of other study work that would be going into assessing what those costs would be. What we would be doing as part of our assessment of the lands is that we will have like a hierarchy, like a, like by say for dollar signs, like a one dollar sign versus a three dollar sign to be able to show like approximately what the relative costs will be for the type of types of development to help us make those recommendations as far as what would be coming within the boundary.

[5:02:11] So we will have that at a very high level, but to have the very specific costs, that won’t be available. That would be coming out of the development charges studies moving forward. Thank you. Councilor? I’m okay. Look for other comments or questions. Did I ask the deputy mayor to take the chair please? I’ll take the chair and recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. Thank you everyone for the vigorous conversation. Thank you for the comments from those in the gallery and online.

[5:02:44] I feel before us is that a couple of things. One is a question about, you know, how do we forecast for 30 years? So I’ll address that. I believe staff have worked very hard for a long period of time. So that’s something that they drew up in the last few weeks. They’ve been working on this for a greater part of a year, taking input from a number of areas, including numbers coming down from the province, coming, going back, doing an economic analysis, feedback from what the development community is seeing. So are you ever going to get numbers exactly, right?

[5:03:18] And 30 or forecast, of course not. But I think this is grounded in good work that has been done to arrive at this number. So what do we do with that number? Well, we could say, well, we don’t want to expand ‘cause we like London. This is the way we like London. But I’ll tell you, as has been mentioned a couple of times, people will go to where they can find affordable land. And if you wrap against our urban growth boundary now, if we limit growth to just infill, et cetera, those are fortunate enough to own properties in London will benefit ‘cause our properties will go up.

[5:03:59] Those seeking less expensive will go outside the city limits. And it’s happening now, I mean, it is. I know for sure, I know example that is Kamoka, as well as the surrounding areas that have already been mentioned. I see it happening out there. And what concerns me is it’s happening in like eight communities around London. We have no control over that growth. We have no control over the density of that growth. I think we’re more aligned with people think that there are an opposite sides of the fence here.

[5:04:33] I think we’re more aligned than you think. If we want to control a city and on how we believe it should grow from a managed, from a green perspective, from a transportation perspective of density, then we have to have that control within the city. It’s gonna, that control is gonna be spent around like eight entities outside of the city. And we’re gonna have to just deal with it, or maybe at some point the province will force us to amalgamate with one of those communities. In the next 30 years, there’s gonna be a number of councils.

[5:05:08] There’s gonna be a number of official plans. There’s gonna be always zoning. We’re gonna have constant conversations of how the city evolves. But the constant of that is that we will have the control to shape a city the way that London wants to shape it. If we don’t go down this path, then we will lose that control. And there’ll be forces outside the city that will dictate how things are happening. Again, because I’m a counselor in the West End, I see it. I see the increased traffic coming in from Komoka. That’s gonna require us to expand the bridge out there. That’s increases congestion out there that we have to answer with transit solutions.

[5:05:47] Even though that part of the issue is coming from outside our control. So let’s plan properly for the next 30 years. Let’s plan a city that works, quite frankly. Let’s start now. And then we will move that responsibility to successive staffs, as successive councils, and mayors that will put their stamp on the vision. But we gotta start with it right now, because right now we’re up against urban growth boundaries. We are, and we have to start the movement now. I can realize we can delay it to 2027.

[5:06:24] That’s not feasible given the population growth that we’re experiencing right now. And we’ll continue in my opinion. So for those reasons, I will support this motion brought forward by the mayor. And thank you, Deputy Mayor for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I’ll return the chair to you, noting that the mayor is now walking and that appears very cold. Okay, I see the mayor walking. I haven’t seen the Prime Minister yet on the Zoom. I see Councillor Trossa with your hand in the air.

[5:06:57] Please go ahead. Thank you, through the chair, a very, very quick question. I know there’s always a concern about not a council not being able to bind the next council. But if we take a measure now, can the next council undo what we did or are they bound by it? Very simple question. Well, I’ll go to the clerk on that question. Through the chair, through the chair. So I change, which you’re not approving today, but this is the step to get to that point of like looking at expanding the urban growth boundary.

[5:07:40] That’s extremely serious decision of council that’s being made. So there may be mechanisms to reduce the urban growth boundary after that fact, but that there is a number of considerations from a legal perspective that you might want to get advice on. But for the most part, what I would suggest to you that if that expansion does occur, that that is likely going to be something that is maintained and held moving forward. So that is a very serious consideration. And so I would make the assumption that when you make these approvals now and then in the future, that this really is something that you’re looking at moving forward with.

[5:08:21] But that ultimate approval is not this step. It’s the next step as far as drawing the line. But once the line is drawn, I’d very much suggest that that’s a firm decision. But I’ll also just pass it on to Heather here as well to give some planning feedback. Thank you through the chair. I’d just also like to confirm that council would only be adopting this recommendation. And it’s ultimately the province that approves it. Thank you, Councillor. Ben answers my immediate question.

[5:08:56] Thank you, thank you very much. Okay, thank you. We need to make a motion to go past six, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Call the vote. Lewis votes yes. Deputy votes yes. Pull those votes now. Morgan votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries five to one.

[5:09:29] Okay, I saw the mayor with his hand up. I’ll go to you, Mayor. I thought I was voting by hand, so keep going. Oh, sorry, I thought you were raising your hand to speak. Okay, all right. Okay, is there anyone else who would like to speak to this? We have a motion moved and seconded. Call the vote. Which part of the vote are you calling first? Since D and E are kind of— Oh, correct, sorry. Yeah, so let’s call, we’re polling to B and E, correct? If that was D and E, yes.

[5:10:08] Yeah, so I will, let’s put A, C, D, F, and G on the floor. No, that’s not what was pulled, sorry. Mr. Chair, perhaps if you called D and E first for I can vote the way I want, and then the rest goes on the floor to make it easy. Okay, let’s call D and E first. Can we call them together or do you want— Absolutely, I will be no to both. Okay, so let’s call D and E first. Lewis votes yes.

[5:10:48] Morgan votes yes. Penny votes yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. I voted no, so motion to reconsider account, whatever needs to be done, proceed.

[5:11:20] Was that verbal, Councilor? Yeah, just can we just revote my no? So the clerk. D and E. Apologies, that was my error. The vote corrected, should— Sorry, your mic’s not on. Clerk. With apologies, that was the clerk’s error. The correct vote is five yes, one no. Okay, and now I’ll put the remainder of the motion on the floor. Councilor, close the votes yes.

[5:11:56] Penny votes yes. Lewis votes yes. Closing the vote, that is five to zero. Okay, his worship is, sorry. His worship’s still on the phone, on the Zoom call. I think he raised his hand, but— I said, I vote yes, but I don’t think my mic was proper there. For clarification, the vote is six to zero. So that concludes our scheduled items.

[5:12:36] We’re well past the five o’clock target. I want to know what committee would like to do. We have— Chair, I’ll be leaving the meeting now. I just wanna let you know. Thank you, Mayor. We have deferred matters list, and then we have one item in the in-camera, so. Mr. Chair. - Councilor Palosa. Would you see it fit that we do, items for the deferred matters list now, and then we can always grab something to eat while we go into closed session and do both at the same time? I’m getting thumbs up from folks, okay?

[5:13:13] So we’ll do items for direction, and then we will break for five minutes to grab food, and then bring it back to go ahead and camera. Is that okay? So can I get a motion regarding the deferred matters list? Councilor Cuddy to receive that list? Yes, yes. - Seconder. Councilor Palosa, call the vote. Close the votes, yes.

[5:13:49] Close the vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, can I have a motion to recess for five minutes? Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy, and we’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’ll be back in five minutes, six to five. Okay, it’s past five after six, I’ll call the committee back to order.

[5:20:36] I’ll look for a motion to go in camera. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hillier, I’ll call the vote. Councilor Palosa votes, yes. Councilor Lewis votes, yes. Cuddy votes, yes. Lame and votes, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Let’s say Hillier votes, yes, but you didn’t see me. (laughing) Okay, so I’ll ask Clerk to prepare the room for in camera.

[5:22:37] All right, we’ll call the meeting back in order, or out of confidential. I’ll go to the Deputy Mayor to report it. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I will report out the progress was made for the item on which we went in camera with regard to client solicitor privileged advice regarding an OLT appeal. Thank you, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Cuddy, all in favor. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thanks everyone, good job.